Cases in which a minor girl leaves home to live with a young man occupy an uneasy corner of POCSO jurisprudence: the statute fixes the age of consent at eighteen, while the facts often describe a relationship the family itself later accepts. In Bail Appln. 3456/2026, decided on 14 October 2026, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail — on a third application — to a man arrested after the sixteen-year-old he said he had married was traced to his rented accommodation. The victim's counsel told the court she had married the petitioner; her parents said they now accept the relationship; and the father, the original complainant, did not wish to pursue the matter. Justice Mini Pushkarna held that no fruitful purpose would be served by continued incarceration.
The case
FIR No. 44/2026 was registered at PS Sarita Vihar on 17 January 2026 on the complaint of a father whose sixteen-year-old daughter had been missing since 5 January. The police traced her in May 2026, living with the petitioner in rented accommodation in Burari. He was arrested the same day; he claimed the two had married, though no proof of marriage was produced, and a medical examination found the girl pregnant. The case was committed to the Special Court (POCSO), South East District, where charges were framed under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (kidnapping — the successor to Section 363 IPC) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault). Two earlier bail applications had failed; this was the third.
How the court reasoned
The relationship
The submissions indicated a consensual relationship; the victim had accompanied the petitioner on the date she was reported missing.
The family's stand
The victim's counsel said she had married the petitioner; her parents accepted the relationship, and the complainant father no longer wished to pursue the case.
The custody calculus
Custodial interrogation was complete, the trial was at the evidence stage, and the petitioner's jail conduct was satisfactory after months in custody.
The precedents
The court drew on the Supreme Court's recent recognition of POCSO's frequent invocation in adolescent relationships, and on a coordinate-bench decision noting that young men in such cases often remain in jail at the family's instance.
Against the State's opposition — the gravity of a Section 6 offence and the apprehension of influencing the victim — the court concluded that no fruitful purpose would be served by the continued incarceration of the petitioner, and granted bail on a personal bond of Rs 20,000 with one surety, coupled with the usual conditions on address, mobile number, non-interference with witnesses and weekly reporting.
The wider conversation
The judgment sits within a visible judicial trend. Courts across the country have repeatedly confronted prosecutions arising from elopements and adolescent relationships, where the machinery of an Act designed against child sexual abuse is set in motion by families objecting to a relationship. The Supreme Court has flagged the issue and the suggestion of a legislative "Romeo-Juliet" safety valve for close-in-age relationships has entered the public debate. None of that dilutes the statute as it stands: the age of consent remains eighteen, the offence remains made out on proof of the physical relationship, and a claimed marriage with a minor is itself legally problematic. What changes is the bail-stage assessment — where the victim is the accused's principal supporter, prolonged pre-trial custody loses its purpose.
Practical pointers
| Stage | What matters |
|---|---|
| First bail application | Candour about the relationship, the victim's statements under Section 183 BNSS, age evidence, and the stage of investigation |
| Successive applications | A material change in circumstances — completed investigation, framed charges, length of custody, the victim's and family's current stand, jail conduct |
| Victim's position | Delhi practice requires notice to the victim in POCSO bail matters; her counsel's submissions can be decisive either way |
| Conditions | Expect address and phone verification, no-contact or reporting conditions, and strict consequences for breach |
For families on the complainant's side, the case illustrates that the criminal process, once set in motion, follows its own logic: the FIR cannot simply be taken back, and the trial continues even where the family reconciles with the relationship. For the defence, the decision confirms that a third bail application is not a futility where circumstances have genuinely moved — but it must be built on record material, not repetition.
Bail orders are fact-specific and the observations in them do not decide the trial. This article summarises a reported Delhi High Court order for general information; it is not legal advice and does not comment on any pending matter of the chamber.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a claimed marriage legalise a relationship with a minor?
No. Under the POCSO Act, consent of a child below eighteen is immaterial, and a claimed marriage is no defence to the offence itself. What the judgment reflects is the distinct question at the bail stage: whether continued pre-trial custody is justified where the relationship appears consensual, the victim supports the accused, and the trial will take its own course.
What weighed with the court in granting bail?
The FIR was lodged by the victim's father after she went missing; she was found living with the petitioner, who claimed marriage; a medical examination showed she was pregnant. Charges stand framed and the trial is at the prosecution evidence stage, custodial interrogation is complete, the petitioner had been in custody for several months with satisfactory jail conduct, and the victim and her parents supported the relationship. The court also drew on recent decisions recognising the misuse of POCSO in adolescent romantic relationships.
What conditions were imposed?
A personal bond of Rs 20,000 with one surety, cooperation with any further investigation, furnishing and maintaining a verified address and mobile number, no inducement or threat to witnesses, appearance before the trial court, and reporting to the local police station every Monday morning. Breach of conditions invites cancellation.
Does the grant of bail affect the trial?
No. The court expressly confined its observations to the bail application. The trial under Section 6 POCSO and Section 137(2) BNS proceeds on the evidence; bail only ends pre-trial custody, it does not decide guilt or innocence.