The Bombay High Court’s Kolhapur bench has granted anticipatory bail to a 26-year-old farmer from Solapur district, who was accused of forcibly marrying and sexually assaulting a 14-year-old minor girl. The case against the man was registered on March 12 by the minor herself, with the prosecution maintaining that it was the girl’s own parents who had compelled her into the marriage. According to the FIR, the marriage was performed on February 29 of the previous year, making the complaint surface nearly a year later.
During the hearing, advocates Piyush Toshniwal, Akash Murudkar, and Ashish Pawar, appearing on behalf of the accused farmer, highlighted that the delay in lodging the FIR was a significant factor that cast doubt on the allegations. They submitted that the minor had later eloped with another man—her boyfriend—who was already married. The wife of this boyfriend had lodged a police complaint, leading to the arrest of both the minor and her partner. It was only after this arrest, the defence argued, that the minor filed an FIR against her husband, accusing him of child marriage and rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The defence further emphasised that before the arrest of the minor and her boyfriend, there had been no accusations of any kind against the husband. According to the lawyers, this indicated that the FIR was a result of personal circumstances and an attempt to eliminate the legal and social hurdles in the relationship between the girl and her boyfriend. Thus, the defence requested relief for the accused, asserting that custodial interrogation was not necessary in light of the delayed complaint and the surrounding circumstances.
On the other hand, Additional Public Prosecutor PP Devkar strongly opposed the plea, pointing out that the accused was in fact the minor’s maternal uncle. Citing provisions of Hindu law, Devkar submitted that marriages between uncles and nieces are prohibited, and this relationship itself made the act unlawful. He argued that the accused had full knowledge of the girl’s young age and still proceeded with the marriage, followed by sexual assault. Highlighting the seriousness of the allegations, Devkar insisted that custodial interrogation was required to pursue the investigation thoroughly.
Justice Shivkumar Dige, however, took into consideration the timeline and circumstances of the complaint. The court observed that the FIR was lodged only after the minor was arrested by the police when she was found with her boyfriend, who was named as a co-accused in the case. The judge noted that the complaint had been delayed by more than a year since the marriage, which weakened the prosecution’s argument that immediate custodial interrogation was necessary.
In his order, Justice Dige remarked that according to the FIR itself, it was the parents of the girl who had forcibly conducted the marriage, and not the accused alone who initiated it. Moreover, he underlined that since the co-accused (the boyfriend) had already been released on bail, and given that the investigation had been completed with a chargesheet already filed, the need for custodial interrogation of the husband no longer remained pressing.
With these observations, the court granted anticipatory bail to the accused farmer, thereby protecting him from arrest while the legal proceedings continue. The case highlights the complex interplay between allegations of child marriage, family compulsion, delayed reporting, and conflicting personal relationships, all of which influenced the court’s decision-making process.
