Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High 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.

Similar News