In Bail Appln. 958/2023 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court grants bail in POCSO case citing contradictions in prosecutrix's statements
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain [07-12-2023]

Read Order: Aditya Raj V. State & Another

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, December 18, 2023: The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case involving sexual harassment, stalking, and criminal intimidation charges. The Court cited contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix and concerns about the potential misuse of POCSO cases as mitigating factors in its decision.

The factual background of the case was that the present FIR was registered, based on a complaint made by the complainant/prosecutrix. The complaint alleged that the petitioner, a senior in the complainant/prosecutrix's school, became over possessive and insecure, which affected her studies. The petitioner's behaviour led the complainant/prosecutrix to refuse the relationship. Subsequently, the petitioner engaged in various threatening behaviours, including sending a suicide note, attempting suicide, threatening the complainant/prosecutrix's father, hacking her social media account, and sending troublesome and obscene messages and pictures. The complainant/prosecutrix also alleged that the petitioner established sexual intercourse with her after making her drink an intoxicating drink despite her refusal and without her consent. The charge sheet was filed for offenses punishable under Sections 354C/354D/506/34 IPC, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 67/67(A)/66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner was arrested and subsequently filed an application for grant of regular bail, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

The petitioner had requested bail on the grounds of being a young individual with no prior criminal record, actively preparing for Civil Services, having strong ties within the community, and hailing from a family of government servants. It was contended that the petitioner and the complainant/prosecutrix developed a relationship only after the complainant/prosecutrix turned 18, and that she had even expressed her desire to marry the petitioner. However, due to the petitioner's focus on Civil Services preparation, he requested the complainant/prosecutrix to wait. Subsequently, the complainant/prosecutrix and her family allegedly began pressuring the petitioner to marry her and threatened to implicate him in a false case if he refused. The petitioner claimed that the present FIR was based on false, frivolous, and baseless allegations and that the complainant/prosecutrix provided contradictory statements.

The single-judge bench, presided over by Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain referred to a previous case, Praduman v. The State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) [LQ/DelHC/2021/2663], wherein bail was granted to the accused on the grounds of contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix. In the said case, the court had highlighted the legal grey area surrounding consensual sex with a minor, acknowledging that a minor's consent cannot be considered valid in the eyes of the law. It pointed out the unfortunate practice of filing POCSO cases due to objections from the girl's family regarding her friendship and romantic involvement with a young boy, leading to the misapplication and misuse of the law. Considering the age of the petitioner and the prosecutrix, photographic evidence indicating a relationship between the two, and the discrepancies in the various statements provided, the court concluded that these were mitigating factors favouring the grant of bail to the accused.

In the case at hand, the bench noted discrepancies in the complainant/prosecutrix's statements and actions, where she took different stands in the complaint, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and during her medical examination. Additionally, she refused to undergo an internal medical examination.

Considering the petitioner's deep roots in society, the completion of the investigation, and the mitigating factors surrounding the case, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, who had been in judicial custody since 13th November 2022.