CASE: Raj Mahato V. State of NCT of Delhi CDJ 2026 DHC 341
CASE NUMBER: Bail Application No. of 3007 of 2025
COURT: Delhi High Court
DATE: 15 May, 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan
FACTS
This case started after a young girl tragically committed suicide on January 26, 2025. A police complaint (FIR) was filed by her parents on February 6, 2025. The girl and the boy (the applicant, Raj Mahato) were school classmates in the 12th grade and were in a romantic relationship. When the girl’s family checked her mobile, they found chats, private photos of both of them and videos, including one where the boy was putting mangalsutra on her. Because they had long conversations on the day of her suicide, the family blamed the boy for her death under Section 108 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sahita, 2023 (BNS).
Because the girl was a minor, the police later added more severe charges against the applicant under the POCSO Act and the Information Technology Act for holding her private photos. The police also added cheating and forgery charges for checking into the hotel with fake IDs and because the boy gave a broken Iphone as evidence. The police initially labeled the boy as a proclaimed offender, However, the High Court gave him temporary protection from arrest on September 1, 2025 if he cooperates with the investigation.
ISSUES
- Can a court give pre-arrest bail (anticipatory bail) to someone facing serious charges involving a minor’s suicide and the POCSO Act?
- Does the fact that a person was temporarily running away completely stop the court from giving them pre-arrest bail?
- Do fights or text messages between two young teenagers in a relationship prove that one person legally forced or encouraged the other to commit suicide?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): Section 482 (Corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Anticipatory Bail).
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS): Section 108 (Abetment of suicide), Section 238 (Destruction of evidence/document), and Section 338 (Forgery of valuable security/will).
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): Section 4 (Punishment for penetrative sexual assault).
- Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act): Sections 67A and 67B (Punishment for publishing/transmitting sexually explicit material).
ARGUMENTS
APPLICANT
His lawyer argued that the boy (who was 18) and the girl were just school classmates in a mutual, consensual relationship, not an abusive one.
The lawyer stated that the boy did not provoke or force her to end her life. The private videos were recorded by the girl herself, and the boy never shared them with anyone else.
The boy had no criminal record, lived permanently in Delhi, and even attended the girl’s funeral rites. He gave his active phone to the police and joined the investigation as ordered.
The defense mentioned that there was a long delay in filing the case and that the girl’s own family had been aggressive toward her because they disapproved of the relationship.
RESPONDENT
The police argued that the boy took advantage of a minor and recorded private videos, which violates strict laws. They claimed he broke his iPhone on purpose to hide evidence.
The prosecution further argued that both of them were also fighting over a boy named “Amit” before the girl committed suicide, Since his family is originally from Nepal, they feared he might flee the country.
The girl’s family claimed the boy was talking to other girls at the same time and bragging about his relationship to his friends, which humiliated the girl and caused her deep sadness.
ANALYSIS
The High Court looked at this case by balancing strict safety laws with the real-world behavior of today’s teenagers. The judge used rules from an earlier case (Dharmander Singh v. State) (2020) SCC OnLine Del 1267 which says courts must look at the age gap. Here, the boy and girl were classmates with an age difference of less than 8 months.
The Court explained that even though legally a minor cannot give consent under the POCSO Act, the law must treat genuine adolescent romances differently to avoid treating teenagers like hardened criminals. The Court even pointed out that the Supreme Court recently suggested making a “Romeo-Juliet law” to protect close-in-age teen couples from unfair jail time.
On the topic of suicide, the judge stated that regular relationship fights or arguments over text messages do not mean a person legally caused or intended for the other to commit suicide. Crucially, the police admitted that the private photos stayed only inside their personal chat and were never shared online. Lastly, the Court decided that even if someone was labeled a runaway, judges can still grant bail in exceptional cases to save a young student’s future from the trauma of jail.
JUDGEMENT
The High Court approved the bail application and confirmed that the boy should not be arrested. The judge ordered that if the police try to arrest him, he must be released immediately on a personal bond of Rs. 35,000/- with two local guarantors, under these simple conditions:
He must show up and help the police whenever the investigator calls him.
He cannot leave Delhi for more than 7 days at a time without telling the police his plan.
He is strictly prohibited from contacting the girl’s family, changing or switching off his mobile or breaking any other relevant law.
CONCLUSION
This judgement highlights a practical and understanding approach with regard to sensitive cases involving teenagers who are at crucial stages in their lives. By grating pre-arrest bail, the Delhi High court chose to protect a young upcoming adult from going to full trial for such severe offences. It certainly separates the adolescent relationship traumas from extreme criminal behaviors, ensuring that statutes like POCSO are applied with strict common sense and fairness.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: LISHIKA BATRA
Read the judgement copy below:
