DELHI HIGH COURT DENIES BAIL, HOLDS THAT MERE FRIENDLY BEHAVIOUR ON VALENTINE’S DAY DOES NOT PERMIT FORCIBLE SEXUAL RELATIONS:

The Delhi High Court has rejected a regular bail application filed by an accused in a case involving allegations of sexual assault on a minor, emphasising that a girl’s friendly behaviour with a boy on Valentine’s Day does not grant any licence for forcible sexual relations.

Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that merely because a girl is friendly with a boy and the day happens to be Valentine’s Day, it does not give the boy any right to forcibly establish sexual relations with her. The court added that even the act of filling the parting of a girl’s hair with vermilion without her consent cannot be justified, although it may not constitute a specific prescribed offence under the law.

The case pertains to offences punishable under Section 64(1) and 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) as well as Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The FIR was registered based on the statement of a 17-year-old girl, referred to as the prosecutrix. She lives with her mother and two brothers, as her father passed away four years ago. The accused, identified as Wasim Akhtar in reports, had known the girl for about a year through telephone conversations.

According to the prosecution case, the accused called the girl to the house of a lady on Valentine’s Day under some pretext. Once she arrived, he allegedly filled the parting of her hair with vermilion and kissed her. Despite her protests and resistance, he then forcibly established sexual relations with her. Upon returning home, the girl informed her brother, who immediately called the police. She was subsequently taken for medical examination.

The accused sought regular bail, arguing that the prosecutrix was above 18 years of age and had consented to the sexual relations. His counsel also highlighted that the incident occurred on Valentine’s Day, describing it as a special day, and contended that the relationship was consensual in nature. The State strongly opposed the bail plea. It submitted that both the prosecutrix and her brother had supported the prosecution’s version during their testimony in the ongoing trial. The girl herself appeared in court to oppose the grant of bail, even though she has since married someone else. The prosecution also relied on school records to establish her minor status at the time of the incident, along with other evidence such as DNA reports.

The court took note of the consistent stand taken by the prosecutrix from the time of lodging the FIR through her testimony during the trial. Justice Kathpalia held that the friendly nature of prior interactions and the occasion of Valentine’s Day could not be construed as implying consent for sexual intercourse, especially when the girl had clearly protested.

The bench observed that the constitutional and legal framework protecting the dignity and autonomy of individuals, particularly minors, must be upheld. The court stressed that no romantic or festive context can override the requirement of free and voluntary consent in matters of physical intimacy. After considering the submissions, the evidence on record, and the stage of the trial, the Delhi High Court concluded that there were sufficient grounds to deny bail. The court dismissed the bail application, reinforcing the principle that friendliness or familiarity does not amount to consent for sexual acts, and that any coercive conduct remains punishable under the law irrespective of the day or nature of prior acquaintance.

This ruling serves as a clear judicial reminder that consent must be explicit, informed, and continuous, and that cultural or festive occasions cannot be used as a defence to justify non-consensual acts.