Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Grants Bail in Disputed Age Marriage Case: Consideration of Appellant’s Custody Since December 2022

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Aniket Kumar, an appellant in a case involving allegations of kidnapping and sexual offenses under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections ¾ of the POCSO Act. The bench, comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal, focused on the appellant’s prolonged custody since December 2022 while making this decision.

The legal crux of this judgement revolves around the granting of bail in a case marked by accusations of abduction and sexual offences, particularly under the stringent POCSO Act. The court’s decision hinged on the appellant’s prolonged period of custody and the complexity surrounding the victim’s age and consent.

Aniket Kumar, the appellant, was accused of kidnapping a girl and committing sexual offenses. The defense argued that the girl had voluntarily married the appellant, as indicated in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A notable contention was the victim’s age, with the appellant claiming she was of marriageable age, while the complainant asserted she was a minor at the time of the incident.

In their assessment, the Supreme Court carefully navigated the sensitive aspects of this case. Justice Bela M. Trivedi noted, “Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,” emphasizing the court’s neutral stance on the factual disputes. The court prioritized the consideration of the appellant’s prolonged custody since December 2022. Justice Pankaj Mithal added, “We are inclined to accept the present appeal,” reflecting the bench’s decision to prioritize the liberty of the individual amidst ongoing legal proceedings.

Concluding the proceedings, the Supreme Court directed the release of Aniket Kumar on bail, subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the Trial Court. This decision marks a significant point in the legal discourse on bail provisions in cases involving sensitive and complex issues like age disputes and consent in alleged sexual offenses.

Date of Decision: February 28, 2024

Aniket Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Latest Legal News