The Bombay High Court has granted regular bail to an 18-year-old accused in a POCSO case involving a 17-year-old victim, holding that a consensual romantic relationship, even with a minor, does not automatically amount to rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, absent proof of force, threat, or fraudulent inducement beyond mere broken promises of marriage.
The Verdict
The applicant won. The Bombay High Court granted regular bail to the accused in a POCSO and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita case, holding that consensual sexual intercourse with a minor, even where a false promise of marriage was made, does not per se establish the essential ingredients of rape under Section 6 of POCSO. The court directed the accused’s release on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety, subject to conditions including no contact with the victim and mandatory court attendance.
Background & Facts
The accused, aged 18 at the time of the incident, and the victim, aged 17 years and 6 months, developed an online relationship through Instagram in October 2024. The relationship evolved into a consensual romantic affair. On 21 January 2025, the accused invited the victim to Shegaon on the occasion of his birthday, booked a hotel room, and engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. The victim became pregnant and later gave birth to a child who died shortly after delivery. She then alleged that the accused had falsely promised marriage to obtain her consent, leading to the registration of Crime No. 427 of 2025 under Sections 64 and 64(2)(i) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4, 6, 17, and 21 of the POCSO Act.
The investigation concluded with the filing of a charge sheet. The accused sought regular bail, arguing that the relationship was consensual and that the prosecution had not established any element of coercion, threat, or deception beyond the broken promise of marriage. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations, the victim’s minority, and the tragic outcome of the pregnancy.
The Legal Issue
Can a consensual sexual relationship between an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old minor, followed by a broken promise of marriage, constitute rape under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, or must there be proof of force, threat, or fraudulent inducement beyond mere deceit?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel argued that the relationship was mutually consensual, with no evidence of physical force, intimidation, or manipulation beyond the unfulfilled promise of marriage. Citing precedents such as State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Singh and Kishore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the counsel contended that a broken promise of marriage, without additional coercive conduct, does not vitiate consent under POCSO. The accused was a minor himself at the time of the relationship’s inception, and the victim was close to majority. The counsel emphasized that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet filed, making continued custody unnecessary.
For the Respondent
The State and the victim’s counsel argued that the accused exploited the victim’s vulnerability due to her age and emotional dependence. They relied on Section 6 of POCSO, which criminalizes penetrative sexual assault on a child, and contended that the false promise of marriage constituted a form of deceit that negated free consent. They cited the Supreme Court’s observation in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh that a promise of marriage can amount to fraud if made with no intention to fulfill it. The death of the child, they argued, heightened the gravity of the offence and justified denial of bail.
The Court's Analysis
The court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but focused on the statutory requirements for establishing rape under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It noted that while the victim was a child under the Act, the prosecution had not adduced any evidence of force, threat, or physical compulsion. The court distinguished between mere deceit and legally cognizable fraud that vitiates consent.
"The fact that the accused made a promise of marriage which was later broken does not, by itself, transform consensual sexual intercourse into rape under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. There must be a nexus between the deception and the act of penetration, such that the victim’s consent was obtained by means of fraud that goes beyond a broken romantic promise."
The court reviewed the FIR and found no allegation of physical violence, confinement, or inducement through threats. The victim had initiated contact, accepted the friend request, and voluntarily traveled to Shegaon. The court held that the law does not criminalize failed relationships or unfulfilled personal commitments, however regrettable they may be. The court further noted that the accused had no prior criminal record and that the investigation was complete, reducing the risk of evidence tampering.
The court also emphasized that POCSO is not a tool to regulate moral conduct between adolescents, but to protect children from predatory sexual exploitation. The absence of any indicia of exploitation or abuse of power rendered the case distinct from those involving guardians, teachers, or authority figures.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment clarifies that consensual sexual relationships between adolescents near the age of majority, even where one party makes a false promise of marriage, do not automatically attract prosecution under Section 6 of POCSO. Practitioners must now focus on proving the presence of coercive or predatory conduct - such as manipulation through authority, threats, or exploitation of dependency - not merely broken promises. Prosecutors should avoid overcharging cases under POCSO where the relationship appears mutual and lacks elements of exploitation.
However, the ruling does not immunize adults who engage in sexual relations with minors. If evidence emerges of grooming, emotional manipulation, or use of position of trust, the court’s reasoning may not apply. The judgment reinforces that consent under POCSO must be evaluated contextually, and mere age disparity is not conclusive. Future bail applications in similar cases may now cite this order to argue for release where investigation is complete and no coercive elements are alleged.
