Bombay High Court: In the present case, applicant sought bail in a case registered with Mukundwadi Police Station, Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 65(1) of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’). A Single Judge Bench of S.G. Mehare, J., after considering the family conditions of the victim and after noting that the victim’s parents wanted to protect her from the ill-eyes of society, they decided the marriage of applicant and victim, granted bail to applicant, who was accused of impregnating the minor victim, who he was to marry.
The applicant and the victim were maternal and paternal brother and sister and since the victim was 14 years old, their marriage was decided. However, before marriage, they got into a relationship and later it was revealed that she was pregnant. The victim being a minor, her statement was recorded, crime was registered, and thus, applicant was arrested.
The applicant submitted that since he and the victim were in a relationship and he proposed to marry, he should be granted bail. Counsel for the victim stated that her father had no objection to the applicant being released and had even admitted the fact of applicant’s and victim’s engagement. Counsel for respondent submitted that if such applications were allowed on no objection by the parents, then the purpose of the POCSO Act would be frustrated.
The Court questioned victim’s father as to why he engaged a minor daughter with applicant, to which the victim’s father stated that her wife was suffering from heart disease, and he himself was suffering from brain problem and so they had apprehension of their untimely deaths and therefore, they thought that their daughter’s life should not be in danger. The Court noted that the victim’s mother had recently expired and since victim’s parents wanted to protect her from the ill-eyes of the society, they decided the marriage of applicant and victim.
The Court opined that it might be a genuine ground and touching the societal structure of our country as poverty was the biggest issue of our country. The Court opined that the reasons for deciding the marriage were probable and with good intent.
The Court noted that the crime was registered, and applicant was ready to marry the victim after she attained majority. The Court opined that these circumstances needed to be considered, therefore, the Court held that applicant should be released on bail and one of the conditions imposed by the Court was that applicant should not be in a physical relationship with the victim till they were legally married.
[Satish Eknath Kakade v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3588, decided on 22-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Wakale Vijay Shivaji, Advocate
For the Respondent: A.S. Shinde, N.S. More, Advocates
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
