Marrying victim doesn't absolve accused of rape under POCSO: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Thursday observed that subsequent marriage between rape accused and minor victim not absolve him of the offence of repeated rape under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) [Gayassudin Vs State of NCT of Delhi].

Justice Girish Kathpalia made this observation while declining bail to a person accused under the POCSO Act who had later married the victim after she lodged criminal case against him.

“Of course, as per documents on record, on 12.02.2026, the accused/applicant got married with the prosecutrix through Nikahnama. But that does not absolve the accused/applicant of his repeated acts of rape when the prosecutrix was minor in age,” the Court said.

The victim/ prosecutrix in the case had complained to police that the accused repeatedly raped her on false assurance of marriage when she was sixteen years of age. She became pregnant and had to undergo abortion twice.

It was alleged that after she turned eighteen, the man refused to marry her and started beating her. This prompted her to file a police complaint. 

The accused stated that he is entitled to bail since he married the girl after she registered the police complaint. 

The Court observed that it was only after the man was arrested and lodged in jail that he agreed to marry the victim-girl.

“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, as alleged by her in the FIR and statement under Section 164 CrPC,” the Court stated. 

Before the High Court, the victim retracted her statements made in the complaint. She stated that the contents of the FIR against the accused were not known to her. The investigating officer opposed the bail plea and also emphasised that the victim is a law student and not an illiterate person. 

The Court agreed with the prosecution submission and observed that the prosecutrix-victim, being a law student, could not have signed the complaint without reading it.

“It would be significant to note that 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, that too after getting the same translated from English to Hindi without reading its contents,” the Court said.

Further, it observed that the prosecutrix’s testimony before itself appears to be false, on the face of it.

“From testimony of prosecutrix, I find credence in the argument of the prosecution that prima facie, her testimony appears to be false, though on this aspect, the trial court shall take an independent view and this observation is being made only to deal with the argument advanced on behalf of the accused/applicant and the prosecutrix.”

Therefore, the Court dismissed the man’s bail application.

Advocates Hemraj Murmu, Arun Kumar Bharti and Tanay Jareda appeared for the accused.

Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal appeared for State.

[Read Order]