Bail in POCSO prosecutions is never a comment on the truth of the allegation; it is a judgment about custody pending trial. In Vicky @ Vikky v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Bail Appln. 3253/2026, decided on 6 October 2026), Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court granted bail to an applicant charged under Sections 6 and 21 of the POCSO Act along with kidnapping and rape provisions of the IPC, after three years and two months of custody, where the victim's successive statements diverged materially and only two of nineteen prosecution witnesses had been examined.
From missing-person report to POCSO trial
The case began not with an allegation of assault but with a father\'s missing-person complaint on 29 July 2023. The victim was found the following day and initially stated she had left home in anger, with no complaint against anyone. The narrative then changed: a later statement alleged confinement and sexual intercourse by the applicant. The chargesheet invoked Sections 363, 368, 376, 328 and 34 IPC with Sections 6 and 21 of the POCSO Act, and the trial has been pending before the ASJ (POCSO), Rohini Courts since 2023.
The material the Court weighed
| Material | What it showed |
|---|---|
| First statement | Left home voluntarily in anger; no complaint against anyone |
| Subsequent statement | Confinement against her will and sexual assault by the applicant |
| MLC | A version involving tea, unconsciousness and a locked room; no intoxicant findings supporting days-long unconsciousness were shown |
| FSL report | Victim\'s DNA in a mixed profile on a blanket; no male DNA in cervical swabs; no profile generated from the applicant\'s sample |
| Social media | Instagram posts and photographs indicating an intimate, publicly known relationship of months |
| Custody and trial | Three years and two months in custody; two of nineteen witnesses examined |
The governing framework
The Court anchored the analysis in the Delhi line of authority on adolescent-relationship POCSO bails: Praduman v. State, which granted bail in a comparable romantic-relationship case, and Dharmender Singh v. State, which catalogues the factors bearing on POCSO bail — the victim\'s age, the nature of the relationship, the accused\'s antecedents, the stage of trial and the risk of influence. Within that framework, the contradictions between statements and the unlinked forensic record were treated not as proof of innocence but as factors reducing the justification for continued pre-trial custody. The judgment is explicit that none of its observations touch the merits, which remain entirely for the trial court.
The larger pattern in POCSO bail jurisprudence
Delhi\'s courts confront a recurring category: prosecutions arising from relationships between adolescents and young adults, initiated through missing-person complaints by parents, in which the victim\'s statements evolve under family pressure in one direction or the other. The statutory position is firm — a minor\'s consent is no defence, and trials must run their course. But bail doctrine has developed a calibrated middle path: prolonged custody of a young accused with no antecedents, in a trial moving at two witnesses in three years, is not required by the statute\'s object. Conditions — distance, non-contact, reporting — do the protective work that custody would otherwise do. This order, following closely on similar decisions of the same court, consolidates that approach.
Bail applications in Delhi are now moved under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the successor to Section 439 CrPC. For offences committed after 1 July 2024, the IPC provisions in cases of this kind correspond to Sections 137, 64 and related provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; the POCSO Act applies unchanged.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the prosecution case?
FIR No. 381/2023 (P.S. Aman Vihar) began as a missing-person complaint by the victim's father in July 2023; she was traced the next day. Initially she stated she had left home in anger and had no complaint. Later she alleged the applicant, then about 20, kept her against her will and had intercourse with her; she was 14 years and 8 months old. The MLC recorded a version involving tea, loss of consciousness and confinement.
Which factors weighed in favour of bail?
The divergence between her initial statement and later allegations; Instagram posts and photographs indicating a publicly known relationship of eight to nine months; forensic results that did not connect the applicant — no male DNA in the cervical swabs and no profile generated from his gauze sample; the close ages of the parties; over three years in custody; no antecedents; and a trial with seventeen witnesses yet to be examined.
Does the victim's age not make consent irrelevant?
Consent of a child below eighteen is legally irrelevant to the offence — the prosecution and complainant pressed exactly that. But bail is a different question: the court relied on Praduman v. State and the factors in Dharmender Singh v. State, which allow the nature of the relationship, the ages involved, custody duration and trial timelines to inform release pending trial without deciding guilt.
What conditions govern the applicant's release?
A personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety; appearance at every hearing; disclosure and updating of residential address with a working mobile number; weekly reporting to the local police station each Monday; and strict prohibitions on contacting or influencing witnesses or committing any offence. The observations are confined to the bail decision alone.