Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Accused in POCSO Case Involving Allegations of Sexual Assault and Forced Marriage
Delhi High Court Refuses Bail in POCSO Case, Notes Allegations of Coercion Through Private Video and Forced Marriage Ceremony
Facts
The accused/applicant, Laxmikant, filed a regular bail application in FIR No. 554/2020 registered at Police Station Prem Nagar for offences under Sections 323, 363, 366, 376D and 199 IPC, Section 12 of the POCSO Act, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. The allegation against him was that he committed serious offences against the prosecutrix, who, according to the prosecution, was below the protected age category at the relevant time.
Earlier, the accused had filed another regular bail application, which was dismissed on 18 March 2026 after the Court considered the prosecution record, including a private video clip. His restoration application was also dismissed, though liberty was granted to file a fresh bail application.
According to the prosecution, when the prosecutrix was studying in Class 8 or 9, the accused used to follow her to school and send letters through his friends, namely Vipul, Mohit and Bala. The prosecutrix initially refused his request, but later agreed to remain only a simple friend.
The prosecution alleged that the accused persuaded her to speak with him over a video call while she was bathing and recorded that private video call. Thereafter, he allegedly used that video to pressurise and blackmail her by threatening to circulate it.
The prosecution further alleged that under such pressure, the accused called the prosecutrix to his house and committed the alleged offence against her. When she tried to leave, the co-accused allegedly stopped her. The accused then allegedly took her to an Arya Samaj Mandir without disclosing the purpose and, by again threatening to circulate the video, performed a marriage ceremony with her.
In her chief-examination, the prosecutrix also alleged that even after the temple incident, the accused took her to his house, where further coercive circumstances were created. She was later able to call the PCR, after which she was rescued.
Issues
Whether the accused was entitled to regular bail in view of the allegations made in the FIR, chargesheet and testimony of the prosecutrix.
Whether the prosecutrix was below the protected age category at the relevant time.
Whether the alleged marriage ceremony could be relied upon by the accused to seek bail.
Whether the prosecutrix not fully supporting the prosecution during testimony was sufficient to grant bail.
Whether the defence explanation regarding the private video clip was acceptable at the bail stage.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The accused argued that the prosecutrix was not below the protected age category, and therefore the POCSO offence was not made out.
It was further argued that since a marriage ceremony had taken place between the accused and the prosecutrix, the subsequent relationship could not be treated as an offence.
The accused also submitted that the prosecutrix had not supported the prosecution case during her testimony.
Regarding the private video clip, the accused argued that the prosecution version about its recovery was incorrect. According to him, the video was recovered from the phone of the prosecutrix’s father, who had received it from the prosecutrix’s brother. It was also argued that the prosecutrix herself recorded and shared the clip.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State strongly opposed the bail application and relied on the earlier bail rejection order dated 18 March 2026, the FIR, chargesheet, testimony of the prosecutrix and the private video clip.
The prosecution argued that the accused had used the private video clip to pressurise the prosecutrix and compel her into acts against her will.
On the question of age, the prosecution relied upon the birth certificate of the prosecutrix and also contended that the relevant incident had taken place earlier than what was being suggested by the defence.
The State submitted that the allegations were serious and did not justify release on bail.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered the matter at the stage of regular bail and examined the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of material on record, and the defence put forward by the accused.
The Court noted that the case involved allegations of coercion through a private video clip, pressure tactics, forced marriage ceremony and serious offences under IPC, POCSO Act and IT Act.
The Court also noted that even apart from the age-related dispute, the prosecution case was that the accused had used the private video clip to compel the prosecutrix into acts against her will. Therefore, the allegations could not be diluted merely by relying on the alleged marriage ceremony.
Precedent Analysis
No specific precedent was discussed in the order. The Court decided the bail application on the facts of the case, the allegations in the FIR and chargesheet, the testimony of the prosecutrix, the age-related material, and the Court’s assessment of the defence version at the bail stage.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court was not convinced by the defence argument that the prosecutrix herself recorded the private video call and voluntarily shared it with her brother, who then shared it with her father.
The Court found this explanation difficult to accept at the bail stage.
The Court also noted that the allegations, if taken as narrated by the prosecution, disclosed serious coercion through misuse of a private video clip, a forced marriage ceremony, and continued pressure upon the prosecutrix.
On the question of age, the Court noted that the prosecution relied on the birth certificate and also alleged that the relevant incident had taken place earlier. Therefore, the defence argument regarding age was not sufficient to justify bail at this stage.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the regular bail application. It held that, considering the allegations of coercion, misuse of private video material, forced marriage ceremony and the surrounding circumstances, the case was not fit for grant of bail.
Case: Laxmikant v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 2425/2026 & CRL.M.A. 18812/2026
Judge: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: 3 July 2026
Result: Bail application dismissed; order directed to be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent.
