By Advocate Tarun Gaur, Practicing in Delhi High Court
In a country where laws are often wielded not just as shields but as swords, the recent decision by the Hon’ble Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani of the Delhi High Court comes as a breath of fresh air—legally sound, socially sensitive, and morally courageous.
Justice Bhambhani, while granting bail to an accused charged under Section 376 IPC (rape) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, rightly observed that “this is yet another case of Juvenile Romance.” Remarkably, the alleged victim herself expressed willingness to stand surety for the accused—a clear signal that the relationship was consensual and devoid of any criminal intent.
This isn’t the first time Justice Bhambhani has shown such clarity. Back in Dharmender Singh @ Saheb v. State [2020 SCC OnLine Del 1267], he laid down important principles for handling cases of “juvenile romance”—a euphemism for consensual relationships between teenagers that are later criminalized by invoking the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act.
A Bold Step in the Right Direction
In my considered opinion, this is a bold and correct judicial approach. The reality on the ground is stark: many of these cases are not crimes in the true sense, but arise from the overzealous need of one set of parents to “protect family honour”. In doing so, they end up inflicting lifelong trauma on another child and their family—tarnishing reputations, jeopardizing futures, and undermining faith in the justice system.
By branding such consensual acts as criminal, the law is stretched beyond its intended purpose—to protect children from actual abuse and exploitation. Instead, it becomes a tool to control adolescent choices, especially those that defy social or cultural expectations.
From a Legal Perspective: Bail Is Sensible and Just
From a legal lens, too, this decision makes perfect sense. Continued incarceration of a young individual—especially when the complainant herself supports bail—serves no purpose. Police investigations are unlikely to yield any fresh evidence in such cases, as the core issue lies in consent and age, not force or coercion.
The Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that bail, not jail, is the rule—especially in cases where custody does not aid investigation. Keeping such accused persons in custody only worsens their social and psychological conditions, while offering no real advantage to the prosecution.
The Need for Nuanced Application of POCSO
There is no denying that the POCSO Act is a landmark piece of legislation that has revolutionized child protection. But not every teenager in a romantic relationship is a predator, and not every act of intimacy is a crime. A more nuanced and sensitive application of the law is the need of the hour.
Justice Bhambhani’s decision reflects precisely that—a balance between legal principles and social reality, between the letter of the law and the spirit of justice.
Conclusion: Let Law Empower, Not Punish Innocence
As a practicing advocate, I strongly applaud this decision. It reaffirms our faith that the judiciary is willing to look beyond black-and-white definitions of guilt, especially when a life—no, two lives—hang in the balance.
When society fails to understand teenage autonomy, and families resort to criminal law to correct romantic “mistakes”, it is the courts that must rise to the occasion. In this case, the Delhi High Court has done just that.
Let us hope this becomes a broader judicial trend: to protect innocence, even when the law appears harsh.