Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi High Court Section 149 IPC Cannot Be Invoked If Number Of Convicted Persons Falls Below Five After Acquittal Of Co-Accused: Allahabad High Court Requirement Of 'Clear Seven Days' Notice For No-Confidence Motion Under West Bengal Panchayat Act Is Procedural, Not Mandatory: Calcutta High Court Cooperative Society’s General Body Cannot Ratify Appointment Made In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registered Will Executed In Hospital Carries Presumption Of Genuineness; Illness Doesn't Equal Unsound Mind: Delhi High Court Exacting Work From Teachers Without Paying Salary Amounts To 'Begar', Violates Article 23: Bombay High Court General & Omnibus Charge Sheet Lacking Individual Roles Of Accused In Matrimonial Case Is Abuse Of Process: Calcutta High Court Admission Of Claim By IRP Not An 'Acknowledgment Of Liability' Under Section 18 Limitation Act To Extend Limitation: Supreme Court Special Appeal Against Order Refusing To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Not Maintainable If Merits Of Original Case Not Decided: Allahabad High Court Prior Sanction Not Required For Magistrate To Direct FIR Registration Under Section 156(3) CrPC; It Is A Pre-Cognizance Stage: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Create Or Expand Criminal Offences In Absence Of Legislative Action: Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Specific Hate Speech Law State Cannot Reopen Regularisation Issues That Attained Finality; ISRO Must Grant Permanent Status To Daily-Wagers: Supreme Court Plaintiffs Seeking Declaration Of Title Must Succeed On Strength Of Own Title, Not Weakness Of Defendant’s Case: Andhra Pradesh High Court Interest Of Justice Demands Child Of Tender Age Remains In Mother's Custody: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgment Debtors Cannot Approbate And Reprobate; Must Adhere To Agreed Valuation In Compromise Decree: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Act As Appellate Court Under Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores NICE Project Land Valuation Material Omissions In Section 161 Statements Cannot Be Cured By Improvements During Trial: Supreme Court Section 498A IPC | Courts Must Guard Against Roping In All Family Members Without Specific Evidence Of Individual Roles: Supreme Court Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Pawan Khera In Forgery Case, Says Allegations Prima Facie Appear Politically Motivated

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