In an application filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding a First Information Report (FIR) dated 06-02-2025 registered for commission of offences under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan granted anticipatory bail to the applicant.
The FIR was registered after the unfortunate death by suicide of the complainant’s daughter. Initially, the complainant did not suspect anyone, but upon checking the deceased’s mobile phone, it was revealed that she had been in contact with the applicant, who was her classmate. Both the deceased and the applicant were Class XII students. It was alleged that the applicant had sent objectionable photos and videos to the deceased on 25-01-2025, and that the two remained in telephonic contact on the date of the incident from 05:47 AM until the deceased committed suicide in the afternoon.
The applicant could be seen putting a mangalsutra on the deceased in one of the videos, among other objectionable photos and videos. It was alleged that the applicant had harassed the deceased, which led her to commit suicide. Since the deceased’s date of birth was recorded to be 16-07-2007, allegations under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Sections 67A/67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were also added. The applicant did not join the investigation and was declared a proclaimed offender on 10-07-2025.
By an order dated 01-09-2025, the Court granted interim protection against coercive steps, subject to the applicant joining the investigation. Further directions were issued by an order dated 23-02-2026. In an updated status report, it was noted that the applicant and the deceased had visited the hotel Z Black on three occasions and had provided fake documents there. This led to the addition of Section 338 of the BNS. A phone was also found on which he had allegedly made videos with the deceased, but the same was in a damaged condition, leading to the addition of Section 238 of BNS.
The Court stated that even though consent is legally irrelevant in cases involving offences under the POCSO Act, it was recognized that relationships among young adults, where there may have been an approval of both participants for a sexual relationship, however misguided, must be treated differently. The Court referred to State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 40, wherein the Supreme Court recommended the Government to consider introducing a ‘Romeo-Juliet clause’ to prevent over-criminalization of consensual close-in-age relationships.
The Court noted that the age difference between the deceased and the applicant was less than eight months. It was stated that the WhatsApp conversations revealed some discord in the relationship, but held that it could not be said that the said conversations constituted abetment to suicide. Considering the applicant’s age, the Court opined that the interim protection granted to him was liable to be confirmed and stated that it did not consider it fit for a 19-year-old individual to be exposed to the risk of custody.
Further, the Court said that the applicant could not be accused of non-cooperation on the grounds that he did not hand over a different phone, which he denied having used. Hence, the Court directed that, in the event of arrest in the said FIR, the applicant was to be released on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 35,000/- with two local sureties of like amount.
The anticipatory bail was granted subject to the applicant reporting to the IO on every occasion, the applicant not leaving the National Capital Territory of Delhi without prior intimation to the IO, etc. Thus, the application was disposed of.
Appearances:
For Applicant – Ms. Shweta S. Kumar
For Respondent – Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan (APP)
For Complainant – Mr. Sandeep Kumar Singh
