Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has recently granted bail to a man who impregnated his 14-year-old fiancé while observing that the marriage was fixed with good intent.

“The reasons for deciding the marriage appears probable and with a good intent. Even the crime is registered, the applicant is ready to marry the victim after attaining her majority,” the order reads.

A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, comprising Justice Mehare, was hearing a bail application filed by a man booked under the BNS Act and the POCSO Act. 

The man and the victim, who were related as maternal and paternal cousins, entered into a relationship before their marriage was arranged. During a medical examination, it was revealed that the victim, a minor, was one and a half months pregnant, leading to the registration of a case. 

The applicant argued that since the relationship was consensual and the two were engaged to marry, he should be granted bail.

The victim's father filed an affidavit before the high court, stating that the applicant and the victim were engaged. He explained that his wife suffered from heart disease, and he had a brain condition, leading to apprehensions about their untimely deaths. As a result, they decided to get the victim engaged during their lifetime. However, the wife later passed away due to her illness. 

The public prosecutor opposed the bail application, arguing that the case constituted an atrocity against a minor girl.

The prosecutor contended that the parents' no-objection was immaterial and could not override the statutory protections under the POCSO Act. He further submitted that granting bail based on parental consent would undermine the purpose and effectiveness of the POCSO Act. 

The bench while granting bail noted that, “In those compelling circumstances, they decided the marriage of the applicant and victim. This may be a genuine ground and touching the societal structure of our country. The poverty is the biggest issue of our country,” the order reads.

Case title: Satish Eknath Kakade vs State of Maharashtra