Read Time: 05 minutes
The high court granted bail observing that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing his judicial custody, as the charges were yet to be framed.
The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a man who was booked for performing a Nikah with a minor girl and allegedly committing penetrative sexual assault.
A single judge bench of the high court, comprising Justice Manish Pitale, was hearing a bail application filed by the man, who had been incarcerated for a year after being charged under the IPC, POCSO Act, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
The applicant contended that it was an arranged marriage, and the records indicated the victim's age as 18 years. He further submitted that the information regarding the girl's age as a minor was provided by her mother, who is a co-accused in the case.
He argued that the FIR had been registered against him in the context of a marital dispute between him and the victim. He stated that it was only when the victim approached authorities to raise concerns under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, that the FIR in the current case was lodged. The bench was also informed that a son had been born out of wedlock in 2021.
The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, arguing that the Kazi who officiated the Nikah should have verified the victim's age at the time of marriage, and by failing to do so, incorrect facts were recorded. He further submitted that the evidence on record sufficiently established the elements of all the offences registered against the applicant.
The high court, in its order, noted that the applicant had made a prima facie case in his favour.
“..it could be said that the applicant has made out a prima facie case in his favour, to contend that he married the victim on the basis of representations made to him with regard to the age of the victim. That the applicant should have been more cautious in ascertaining the age of the victim, is a different matter,” the order reads.
Therefore, the high court proceeded to grant bail to the applicant, observing that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing his judicial custody, as the charges were yet to be framed.
“In this situation, when the charge is yet to be framed and the trial will take considerable period of time, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the judicial custody of the applicant. His languishing in jail would not be justified in the light of the aforesaid material brought to the notice of this Court,” the order reads.
Please Login or Register
