Raj Mahato v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2026

The case arose after the suicide of a Class XII student on January 26, 2025.

The FIR was registered after the deceased girl’s mother checked her mobile phone following the incident.

The prosecution alleged that the accused had sent objectionable photographs and videos to the deceased a day prior to the suicide.

It was further alleged that the accused remained in telephonic contact with the deceased on the date of the incident.

The State alleged that the accused, who was above 18 years of age, had physical relations with the deceased, who was a minor, thereby attracting provisions of the POCSO Act.

Allegations were also made regarding recording of intimate videos, attracting offences under Sections 67A and 67B of the IT Act.

The prosecution claimed that the accused failed to cooperate with the investigation and that recovery of the mobile phone used for recording videos was pending.

The defence argued that both individuals were classmates studying in the same school and were in a consensual relationship.

It was submitted that there was no material indicating instigation or abetment of suicide.

The defence also argued that there was no evidence showing circulation of the alleged videos to third parties.

The Court observed that though consent is legally irrelevant under the POCSO Act, relationships among young adults involving de facto approval require a different approach while deciding bail.

The bench referred to the Supreme Court decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr., which discussed the possibility of introducing a “Romeo-Juliet clause” to prevent over-criminalisation of consensual adolescent relationships.

The Court noted that the age difference between the accused and the deceased was less than eight months.

It was also observed that both were classmates studying in the same school.

Upon examining the WhatsApp chats, the Court found that although the conversations reflected discord in the relationship, they did not prima facie disclose abetment of suicide.

The Court further noted that the allegedly objectionable videos and photographs were exchanged only between the two individuals.

No evidence was found showing circulation of the material to any third person.

The bench observed that exposing a 19-year-old student to custodial detention would have serious ramifications.

Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim protection earlier granted and directed that the accused be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest.

The judgment reflects a balanced judicial approach towards cases involving adolescent relationships under the POCSO Act.

The Delhi High Court acknowledged the growing concern regarding criminalisation of consensual relationships between young individuals close in age.

By referring to the concept of a “Romeo-Juliet clause,” the Court aligned itself with evolving jurisprudence favouring proportionality in such cases.

The ruling highlights the distinction between exploitative sexual offences and consensual relationships among teenagers or young adults.

The Court carefully evaluated the electronic evidence, particularly the WhatsApp chats, before concluding that no prima facie case of abetment of suicide was made out.

The judgment also demonstrates judicial sensitivity towards the long-term consequences of custodial detention on young students.

Importantly, the Court did not dilute the statutory protections under the POCSO Act, but instead balanced them against the factual realities of the relationship.

The ruling may contribute to broader discussions on reforming statutory frameworks dealing with consensual close-in-age relationships.

The decision reinforces the principle that bail adjudication must consider the surrounding social and factual context rather than relying solely on technical statutory application.

Overall, the judgment is significant in shaping a nuanced approach to POCSO prosecutions involving adolescent consensual relationships.