Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan has granted regular bail to an accused facing allegations of taking a minor girl to Agra and engaging in sexual relations with her in a case involving offences under the POCSO Act and the IPC. While noting that any purported consent of a minor has no legal value, the Court treated the prosecutrix’s age—assessed at 17 years on the material available—and the indications of a romantic relationship as relevant considerations at the bail stage, in the absence of a prima facie account of violence or brutality. Bail was made subject to furnishing a personal bond and surety, and conditions including not leaving the city/NCR without intimation and keeping the investigating agency informed of a working mobile number.

The proceedings arose from a petition seeking regular bail in connection with allegations involving offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution case was initiated on the basis of a complaint alleging that a minor girl had been taken away by the accused from a public place and thereafter remained with him for several days outside Delhi. It was alleged that during this period, physical relations were established between them.

Also Read: Party Accepting Section 11 Arbitrator Appointment Cannot Later Challenge Validity Of Arbitration Clause Under Pre-2015 Regime; Supreme Court

During investigation, both the accused and the prosecutrix were traced to a hotel in Agra and brought back to Delhi. The prosecutrix underwent medical examination, counselling, and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused was arrested and subjected to medical examination. As documentary proof of age was unavailable, a bone ossification test was conducted, which assessed the age of the prosecutrix as being more than 14 years but less than 17 years.

The defence contended that the relationship was consensual and romantic in nature, relying on the prosecutrix’s statements before the police and the Magistrate, as well as her testimony during trial. The prosecution opposed bail on the ground of minority and seriousness of the allegations. The Court considered the material placed on record for the limited purpose of adjudicating the bail application.

The Court observed that “the age of prosecutrix could not become available as she never went to School” and that a bone ossification test had therefore been conducted. It recorded that “the report of said test… mentions the age of the prosecutrix as more than 14 years but less than 17 years.” Relying on earlier precedent, the Court stated that “the upper age given in ‘reference range’ be considered as age of the victim” and accordingly treated the prosecutrix as being 17 years old.

While clarifying the scope of examination at the bail stage, the Court observed that “the probative value of the evidence and the credibility of the witness is not to be examined… while considering the bail application”, but noted that the FIR and statements were perused “only for the limited purpose of deciding this bail application.”

On evaluation of the material, the Court recorded that “the FIR specifically mentions that the prosecutrix is friends with” the accused and that her statements and cross-examination “suggests that she had liking for the petitioner and went with him to Agra out of her own free will.” It further observed that “it appears to be a case of romantic relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix.”

Addressing the issue of consent, the Court stated that “undoubtedly, the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident, therefore, her consent… will have no value in the eyes of law”, but added that “taking her age as 17 years, it prima facie appears that prosecutrix was of sufficient maturity and intellectual capacity.” The Court noted that this factor “tilts the balance in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of granting bail.”

The Court also recorded that “the present is not a case where prosecutrix has been subjected to any violence or brutality” and that all material witnesses had already been examined, observing that “there is no question of petitioner exerting any influence on the said witness.” It further noted the period of incarceration and absence of previous involvement.

Also Read: PG Residency Can Be Counted Cumulatively Across Institutions If Prospectus Doesn’t Say Otherwise: Delhi High Court Sets Aside AIIMS Rejection Of Top Rank Holder

The Court directed that “the petitioner is admitted to regular bail” subject to compliance with specified conditions. The petitioner shall furnish “a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/JMFC/Duty JM.”

“The petitioner shall not leave city/NCR region without informing the local SHO. The petitioner shall provide his mobile number to the IO concerned which shall be kept in working condition at all times” and that “he shall not change the mobile number without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer concerned.”

“The observations made hereinabove are only for the limited purpose of deciding the present bail application and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Advocate; Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent (State): Mr. Tarang Srivastava, Additional Public Prosecutor, with S.I. Dharmendra

For the Prosecutrix: Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Advocate; Ms. Nitya Jain, Advocate

Case Title: Varun Kumar Singh v. State (SHO Rajinder Nagar)

Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC: 896

Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 3015/2025

Bench: Justice Vikas Mahajan