Court Emphasizes Supreme Court's `Romeo-Juliet' Principle, Orders Bail with Strict Conditions Amid Ongoing Trial
In a significant judgment delivered on October 12, 2026, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to Rohit, a 27-year-old accused in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) case, highlighting the delicate balance between protecting minors and preventing misuse of stringent laws in adolescent romantic relationships. The case, registered as FIR No. 461/2025 at PS Jyoti Nagar, involves allegations of repeated forcible sexual intercourse with a minor victim aged 16 years at the time of the incidents.
The Court's order, pronounced by Justice Mini Pushkarna, was based on a thorough examination of the facts, including medical reports, call detail records (CDR), and victim's testimony. The victim had alleged three separate incidents of forcible sexual intercourse between July and September 2025. However, the medical examination indicated mutual sexual intercourse with contraceptive use and no signs of drug intoxication. Notably, the victim's mother refused an internal examination, and forensic analysis revealed regular contact and conversations between the victim and Rohit even after the alleged incidents.
Crucially, the victim herself acknowledged a friendship with the accused, stating he used to pick and drop her from tuition classes and that she wished to marry him-claims opposed by her family due to the accused's age, unemployment, and past. The victim had already been examined and cross-examined, and the accused had been in custody for over one year without prior criminal antecedents.
The Court drew heavily from the Supreme Court's recent observations in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh (2026), which cautioned against misuse of the POCSO Act to suppress adolescent romantic relationships. The Supreme Court recommended a "Romeo-Juliet" clause to exempt consensual relationships from the Act's stringent provisions, underscoring that the law should not become a tool for familial vendettas or social control. This principle was echoed by the Delhi High Court's own precedents, which have noted frequent misuse of POCSO complaints by families opposing youthful relationships.
Justice Pushkarna also referred to other High Court decisions emphasizing judicial discretion in such matters, including Riyaz v. State (2024) and Sahil v. State NCT of Delhi (2024), reinforcing the need to balance minor protection with recognition of adolescent autonomy.
Given these considerations, the Court granted bail to Rohit on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety of the like amount. The bail was subject to stringent conditions, including:
- Prohibition on contacting the victim or her family
- Residence restriction to stay at least 5 km away from victim's residence
- Mandatory monthly reporting to police
- Cooperation with investigation and prohibition on tampering with evidence
- Disclosure of residence and mobile phone number to police with the phone kept switched on
The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail decision and should not influence the trial outcome, which involves 21 witnesses and is expected to be lengthy.
This judgment underscores the evolving judicial approach towards POCSO cases involving adolescents, recognizing that while protecting children remains paramount, the law must not be weaponized to stifle consensual relationships or settle personal scores. It also calls for legislative and societal reforms, including potential introduction of a `Romeo-Juliet' exemption, to prevent misuse of protective laws.
Bottom Line:
Bail - POCSO - Where victim was minor but material on record showed continuing friendship and regular contact between victim and accused, victim had already been examined, accused had remained in custody for more than one year, had no criminal antecedents and trial with 21 witnesses was likely to take time, regular bail granted subject to stringent conditions.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Sections 137(2), 64(1), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Rohit v. State (NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2995485
