Marriage after arrest no escape: Delhi High Court denies bail in POCSO case, questions prosecutrix’s u-turn

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail in a serious POCSO case, holding that a subsequent marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix cannot erase allegations of repeated sexual assault committed when she was a minor.In a reasoned order, Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed the bail plea of the accused, observing that the marriage appeared to be a calculated ploy to secure release from custody. The Court also doubted gravely of the credibility of the prosecutrix, her effort to disown her own complaint being described as prima facie unbelievable, especially in the face of her professional training in law and her earlier testimony before a Magistrate.Background of the CaseThe case arose out of FIR No. 167/2025 registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, whereby, the accused sought regular bail after his arrest.The prosecution claimed that the accused met the prosecutrix (who was 16 at the time) via Facebook. On one occasion, she went with him to a flat at the assurance that they would only talk. However, after consuming food and a soft drink given by him, she lost consciousness.

Upon regaining consciousness, she found herself naked beside the accused, with blood stains on the mattress and pain in her private parts.The accused assured her that he would marry her after she turned 18. On this promise, he continued to engage in sexual relations with her at different locations, including hotels and his residence. During this period, the prosecutrix became pregnant twice, and both pregnancies were terminated at the instance of the accused.It was further alleged that after she attained majority, the accused refused to marry her and even subjected her to physical violence, following which she lodged the complaint leading to registration of the FIR.Submissions Before the CourtOn behalf of the accused, it was argued that subsequent to the registration of the FIR, the parties had solemnized marriage through a Nikahnama and therefore the accused deserved to be released on bail.

It was further argued that the prosecutrix had no grievance against the accused and that the complaint had been drafted by her counsel without her knowledge.The prosecutrix herself supported the bail application. She stated that the contents of the FIR were false and claimed that she had not read the complaint before signing it. According to her, the complaint was initially drafted in English and later translated into Hindi at her insistence, but she remained unaware of its contents.The State, on the other hand, strongly opposed the bail plea. It was argued that the prosecutrix is a law student and not an illiterate person, and therefore her claim of ignorance was inherently unreliable. The prosecution also pointed out that she had earlier reiterated the allegations in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate. It was further submitted that permitting bail in such circumstances would encourage “lawlessness with impunity.”Court’s Analysis of Prosecutrix’s Contradictory StandThe Court carefully examined the contradiction between the prosecutrix’s FIR, her statement under Section 164 CrPC, and her testimony before the trial court.Noting that she is a law student, the Court found it difficult to accept her claim that she signed a serious complaint without reading it. The Court observed:“The prosecutrix is a law student and prima facie, I find it difficult to believe that she is so gullible that she would simply sign such a serious complaint and give it to the local police… without reading its contents.”The Court further noted that she failed to disclose the identity of the advocate who drafted the complaint, despite claiming to have paid fees. This omission added to the doubt regarding her version.Significantly, the Court placed reliance on her earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC, where she had clearly repeated the allegations made in the FIR. Her explanation that she did so under fear that she might be sent to jail if she did not repeat the allegations was found unconvincing.The Court observed:“Such statement coming from a person not an illiterate but a law student is difficult to believe.”At the same time, the Court clarified that its observations regarding the falsity of her testimony were only prima facie and that the trial court would independently assess the evidence without being influenced by these remarks.Marriage After Arrest Not a Ground for BailA central issue before the Court was whether the subsequent marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix could justify grant of bail.The Court rejecting this argument, held that such marriage does not absolve the accused of the offences committed when the prosecutrix was a minor. The Court examined the timing and circumstances of the marriage and found that it took place only after the accused had been arrested.The Court also noted that even the interim bail proceedings had been structured in a manner that the accused was taken in custody before the Qazi for solemnization of marriage, indicating that the marriage was closely linked to the bail proceedings.In a strong and categorical finding, the Court held:“Clearly, the marriage was performed by the accused/applicant simply as a ploy to get himself bailed out, having committed repeated rapes of a minor girl…”The Court stressed that serious allegations of sexual assault under the POCSO Act cannot be diluted by subsequent personal arrangements between the parties.While considering the bail application, the Court noted that the allegations in the FIR and the statement under Section 164 CrPC were detailed and specific, including allegations of repeated sexual assault, pregnancy, and termination of pregnancies.The Court found that the prosecutrix’s subsequent retraction did not inspire confidence and appeared to be inconsistent with her earlier stand. The Court also took note of the prosecution’s submission that such conduct, if accepted, would encourage misuse of the legal process and undermine the administration of justice.The Court was further of the view that the gravity of allegations, coupled with the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s stand and the circumstances surrounding the marriage, weighed against the grant of bail.Considering the totality of circumstances, including the seriousness of the allegations under the POCSO Act, the prosecutrix’s contradictory statements, her earlier confirmation of allegations before the Magistrate, and the timing of the marriage, the Court held that it was not a fit case for grant of bail.Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed, with directions to communicate the order to the accused through the Jail Superintendent.BAIL APPLN. 1087/2026 & CRL.M.A. 8189/2026 GAYASUDDIN vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHIFor Petitioner: Mr. Hemraj Murmu, Mr. Arun Kumar Bharti and Mr. Tanay Jareda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with IO/SI Shakuntala, PS Jamia Nagar(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)