Courts dealing with POCSO allegations that arise out of adolescent relationships face a recurring tension: the statute admits no concept of consent below eighteen, yet prolonged pre-trial custody is not meant to be punishment. In Rohit v. State (NCT of Delhi) (BAIL APPLN. 1241/2026, decided 12 October 2026), Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court granted bail to an accused who had spent over a year in custody, after the victim had already been examined and cross-examined at trial.
The case
FIR No. 461/2025 was registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar in September 2025 on the complaint of a minor girl, who alleged that the petitioner — a neighbour with whom she had been in contact since April 2025 — had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions, threatened her, and recorded a video. School records confirmed she was a minor, and the petitioner was charged under Sections 137(2), 64(1) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He was arrested in September 2025, and the sessions trial before the Special POCSO Court at Shahdara reached the prosecution-evidence stage.
What weighed with the Court
The adolescent-relationship jurisprudence
The Court drew on the Supreme Court's recent treatment of POCSO prosecutions arising out of adolescent relationships — including its 2026 decision in State of U.P. v. Anurudh, which discussed the misuse of the statute against young couples and the debate over a “Romeo-Juliet” exception — as well as earlier Delhi High Court bail decisions in comparable fact situations. None of this dilutes the statutory position that a minor cannot consent. What it does is inform the discretion at the bail stage: where the prosecutrix's own recorded evidence speaks of a relationship rather than predation, the calculus of pre-trial detention changes.
The defence and prosecution positions
For the petitioner
No injuries in the medical examination, grounds of arrest not supplied, no test identification parade, and hotel records said to point away from the allegation.
For the State and complainant
Consistent statements of the victim, documentary links between the petitioner and the hotel, the age gap as an aggravating feature, and an early-stage trial.
The Court did not resolve these disputes — it could not, at the bail stage. It granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety, coupled with strict distance, no-contact and reporting conditions, and preserved the State's liberty to seek cancellation on any fresh complaint.
The order is a reminder that bail in POCSO matters is not foreclosed by the gravity of the label. Where the recorded evidence suggests an adolescent relationship, the material witness has deposed, and custody has stretched past a year, courts will ask what further purpose detention serves — and will answer it with conditions rather than continued incarceration. The merits remain entirely open for the Special Court.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the POCSO Act recognise consent of a minor?
No. For persons below eighteen, consent is legally irrelevant to the offence. However, courts — including the Supreme Court — have observed that prosecutions arising from adolescent relationships stand on a different factual footing, and that reality can inform the exercise of bail discretion, even though it does not erase the offence.
Why did the stage of trial matter to the bail decision?
The victim had already been examined and cross-examined. Once the most material witness has deposed, the apprehension that the accused will influence her evidence loses much of its force. With twenty-one witnesses cited and the trial certain to take time, continued custody served little purpose connected to the trial itself.
What conditions were imposed on the accused?
A personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety, no contact with the victim or her family, a prohibition on residing within five kilometres of her residence, monthly reporting to the police station, keeping his phone operational, and a warning that any fresh complaint can ground a cancellation plea by the State.
Does a bail order decide the merits of the POCSO charge?
No. The High Court expressly confined its observations to the bail application. The trial will be decided on the evidence led before the Special Court, uninfluenced by the findings recorded at the bail stage.