Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

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.

Similar News