Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards

“Minor’s Consent Is No Defence – Anticipatory Bail Denied in POCSO Case Alleging Repeated Assault and Digital Blackmail”, In a significant ruling reinforcing the uncompromising protection afforded to minors under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), the Delhi High Court refused anticipatory bail to an accused charged with repeated sexual assault, digital blackmail, and conspiracy involving a minor girl. The case, registered under FIR No. 553/2025, involves serious allegations of exploitation over a two-year period, and the Court found that the statutory rigour of POCSO and the need for custodial interrogation decisively outweighed the petitioner’s plea for pre-arrest protection.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja, while rejecting Bail Application filed by Mr. Amaan Khan, held that the consent of a minor is legally irrelevant, and that the allegations disclosed a sustained course of coercion and criminal intimidation, requiring full custodial investigation without interference from protective bail orders.

“Courts Cannot Dilute POCSO on Grounds of ‘Adolescent Romance’ – Consent of a Child Has No Legal Value”

Dismissing arguments raised by the accused that the relationship was allegedly consensual and romantic, the Court reaffirmed the foundational principle of POCSO that a minor is legally incapable of giving consent for sexual acts.

“The POCSO Act operates on the foundational premise that children are incapable of giving lawful consent… Regardless of purported willingness or familiarity, the Act criminalises such conduct.”

The Court cited and relied heavily on Varun Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Javed v. State, and Prince Kumar Sharma v. State, wherein it has been consistently held that consensual behaviour is no defence when the prosecutrix is under 18 years of age.

Justice Dudeja reiterated:

“Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that both parties were of comparable age during certain periods, the fact remains that any sexual act with a minor attracts the stringent mandate of the POCSO Act, and the statutory protections accorded to the prosecutrix cannot be diluted by speculative assertions regarding her date of birth.”

“Use of Disappearing Messaging Apps to Threaten Victim Demands Forensic Custodial Probe”

One of the critical grounds for denying anticipatory bail was the digital dimension of the crime, particularly the use of Snapchat, a platform known for disappearing messages, to blackmail and intimidate the minor.

The Court observed: “The allegations require thorough forensic examination of devices, recovery of digital material, and verification of the chain of transmission of the alleged video… Custodial interrogation is essential for recovery of electronic devices, extraction of metadata, and tracing digital footprints.”

The prosecution emphasized that electronic evidence is fragile, often susceptible to tampering, and that the accused’s refusal to respond to notices under Section 179 BNSS and his absconding conduct further justified denial of anticipatory bail. The Court agreed that an uninterrupted and effective investigation was only possible through custodial interrogation.

“Anticipatory Bail is Not a Shield to Evade Investigation in Serious POCSO Allegations”

Rejecting the petitioner’s reliance on delay in lodging FIR and age discrepancy claims, the Court held that these were issues fit for trial, and that premature consideration would amount to conducting a mini-trial, which is impermissible at the bail stage.

In a powerful endorsement of the POCSO framework, Justice Dudeja stated:

“Courts must adopt a cautious and protective approach. The seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the statutory presumption under POCSO… places a heightened responsibility on the Court to ensure that the protective purpose of the Act is not undermined.”

The judgment extensively referred to Ram Kumar v. State, where it was held that anticipatory bail in child sexual offences would send a dangerous signal, and to Saiful Khan v. State, which emphasized that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more effective and anticipatory bail must be sparingly granted in such cases.

“Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Tool to Shield the Accused in Cases Involving Custodial Interrogation and Societal Interest”

The Court underscored that pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS is not to be granted routinely, particularly where serious sexual offences against minors are alleged. Citing State of A.P. v. Bimal Krishna Kundu and State v. Anil Sharma, it was noted that public interest and the effectiveness of custodial interrogation must take precedence.

The Court concluded:

“The presumption of innocence and the right to liberty must be considered in conjunction with the gravity of the offence, its societal impact, and the need for a comprehensive and unobstructed investigation.”

In view of the minor victim’s age, seriousness of allegations, statutory mandate of POCSO, and need for custodial interrogation, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, holding that granting bail at this stage would compromise the integrity of investigation and defeat the object of child protection laws.

Date of Decision: 05 December 2025