Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court granted bail to the petitioner, who was accused under Sections 137(2)/64 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 6/21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The court held that since the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed, no further custodial interrogation was necessary. The court acknowledged that the petitioner and the victim had entered into marriage under Muslim law and had been residing together. However, it also recognized the contradiction in the victim’s age as per her Aadhaar card and school records. Given that no additional evidence was required from the petitioner, he was granted bail with conditions.
The bail was granted on the following conditions:
- The petitioner must furnish a bail bond of ₹25,000 with one surety.
- He must not misuse his liberty or tamper with evidence.
- He must provide his operational phone number to the investigating officer.
- He must appear before the trial court on every hearing date.
Facts
- Allegations and FIR – The case arose from an FIR registered on October 2, 2024, at the Malviya Nagar Police Station in Delhi. The complainant, the victim’s mother, alleged that her daughter had been kidnapped on August 10, 2024.
- Petitioner’s Version – The petitioner contended that he and the victim had lawfully married under Muslim law on July 4, 2024, in the presence of the victim’s mother and other family members. He claimed that the allegations of abduction and sexual offenses were false.
- Conflicting Age Documents – The petitioner submitted that the victim’s Aadhaar card showed her birth date as February 14, 2014, making her 20 years old at the time of marriage. However, the prosecution stated that school records showed the victim was only 14 years old at the time of the incident.
- Victim’s Statement – The victim, when recovered from Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh, stated that she had willingly married the petitioner and was residing with his family. She further stated that she had no grievances against him and did not wish to pursue the case.
- Investigation and Charge Sheet – The police completed their investigation, recovered the victim, recorded her statement under Section 180 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and added charges under Section 64B of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. A charge sheet was filed, and a supplementary charge sheet under Section 173(1) CrPC was to be filed later.
Issues
- Age Verification and Legal Status of Marriage – Whether the victim was a minor at the time of marriage, considering conflicting age records.
- Application of POCSO Act – Whether the alleged offense under POCSO stands when the victim herself denies any wrongdoing by the petitioner.
- Bail Considerations – Whether bail should be granted despite the gravity of the charges, given that the investigation was complete.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- False Implication Due to Property Dispute – The petitioner alleged that the case was fabricated by the victim’s aunt, who sought to extort money and had a vested interest in the victim’s property.
- Valid Marriage Under Muslim Law – The petitioner argued that as per Muslim personal law, a girl is eligible for marriage upon attaining puberty. Since the victim had married him willingly, the case against him was invalid.
- Aadhaar Card as Proof of Age – The petitioner contended that the victim’s Aadhaar card showed her as 20 years old, proving that she was not a minor.
- Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception – The petitioner relied on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, emphasizing that bail is a rule and incarceration should be an exception unless necessary for investigation.
- No Further Investigation Required – Since the charge sheet had been filed and the victim supported the petitioner, further custody was unnecessary.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Contradictory Age Records Indicate Minor Status – The prosecution argued that as per school records, the victim was 14 years old at the time of the incident, making the marriage void and the petitioner’s actions a criminal offense under the POCSO Act.
- Consent is Irrelevant in POCSO Cases – The prosecution emphasized that under the POCSO Act, a minor cannot consent to marriage or sexual relations, making the petitioner’s defense invalid.
- Offenses Under POCSO and New Criminal Code – The State argued that apart from POCSO charges, the petitioner was also liable under the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for kidnapping and wrongful confinement.
- Ongoing Proceedings Against Victim’s Parents – The prosecution also highlighted that the victim’s parents were facing separate charges for facilitating the illegal marriage.
Analysis of the Law
- POCSO Act and Strict Liability – Under the POCSO Act, any sexual activity with a minor is punishable, regardless of consent. If the victim was under 18, the petitioner could not rely on consent as a defense.
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – This law governs criminal procedural aspects, including bail considerations. The new framework replaces the CrPC and provides guidelines for granting bail under evolving jurisprudence.
- Muslim Personal Law vs. Statutory Law – The case highlights the ongoing debate over whether Muslim personal law, which allows marriage upon puberty, can override statutory provisions like the POCSO Act.
Precedent Analysis
- Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 – The Supreme Court ruled that bail should be the norm, and pre-trial detention should only be used when necessary.
- Victim’s Independent Statement in POCSO Cases – Courts have held that even if a minor victim testifies in favor of the accused, the law’s protective nature overrides their consent.
Court’s Reasoning
- Contradiction in Age Documents – The court acknowledged that there was a conflict between the Aadhaar card and school records regarding the victim’s age but refrained from deciding this issue at the bail stage.
- Victim’s Consent & Statements – The court considered the victim’s assertion that she had willingly married the petitioner and had no grievance against him.
- No Need for Further Custodial Interrogation – Since the charge sheet had been filed and all necessary evidence collected, keeping the petitioner in custody was deemed unnecessary.
- Granting Bail Does Not Prejudge the Case – The court clarified that bail did not mean the petitioner was acquitted; the trial would determine his guilt or innocence.
Conclusion
The court granted bail to the petitioner under the following conditions:
- Furnishing a bail bond of ₹25,000 with one surety.
- No tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
- Keeping a working phone number and sharing it with the investigating officer.
- Attending all court hearings.
Implications
- Personal Law vs. POCSO – The judgment highlights the conflict between Muslim personal law and statutory protections under the POCSO Act.
- Impact on Bail Jurisprudence – The ruling reaffirms that pre-trial detention should be avoided when investigation is complete.
- Child Marriage Debate – The case sheds light on legal inconsistencies in determining the age of a minor for marriage.
- POCSO Act’s Strict Application – Even if a minor claims consent, the law does not recognize it, strengthening protections for minors.