SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6651

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Arun Monga, J
HAMID RAZA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 2867/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Furkan Ali Mirza, Mr. Asim Kirmani, Mr. Haris Ahmad, Mr.Abdul Wasih
For the Respondents: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, ASI Rakesh, Ms. Nandita Rao, Mr. Amit Peswani, Professor Faizan Mustafa, Dr. Mohd. Khalid Khan, Mr. Nehal Ahmed

A marriage under Islamic law, based on attaining puberty, may be considered valid even if contracting parties are under 18, challenging statutory provisions on age of consent.

Headnote:(A) Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 - Sections 3 and 12 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 6 - Bail application concerning a case of alleged marriage involving a minor; spouse claims valid marriage under Islamic law - Prosecution alleges that prosecutrix was still a minor at the time of marriage, while applicant asserts the relationship was consensual and lawful. Court noted the prosecutrix expressed her desire to continue with the applicant, thus questioning the validity of the FIR lodged by her stepfather. Key consideration being the marital status under Islamic law, the court deliberated on dissenting views about the age of consent and validity of contracts under differing legal frameworks including customary and statutory laws. The applicant's persistent detention raised concerns over the right to a speedy trial and fair legal process. Bail was sought on the grounds of prolonged custody, disputed ages, and lack of credible evidence supporting charges. (Paras 1-35).

(B) Burden of proof - A marriage under Islamic law deemed valid if parties consent and puberty is attained regardless of statutory interpretations of age of consent. Noteworthy references from Islamic law experts supported the argument about the permissibility of marrying post-puberty highlighting glaring contrasts with current statutory mandates requiring legislative clarity. (Paras 1.6, 10-15).

(C) Court grants interim bail on conditions after evaluating factors including prosecutrix's consent, lack of criminal antecedents, during the period of trial, emphasizing on legislative reform for addressing conflicting laws around marriage and personal freedoms.

Table of Content
1. background of the prosecutrix's case and marriage. (Para 1 , 2)
2. charges and investigations against the applicant. (Para 3)
3. court's orders during hearings. (Para 5 , 6)
4. expert insights on islamic law and marriage validity. (Para 9)
5. submissions by applicant's counsel regarding marriage legitimacy. (Para 12)
6. case law supporting islamic law on marriage validity. (Para 17)
7. court analysis of the marriage's legal standing. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
8. examination of fir credibility and victim's autonomy. (Para 21)
9. consideration of societal and legislative implications. (Para 30 , 34)
10. final order for bail with appreciation of assistance. (Para 32 , 33)

JUDGMENT

1. Barely 14 years child herself, when the mother in her was born as the prosecutrix bore her first child, forced by the heinous sexual assault of her stepfather, her supposed protector turned predator. Later the infant was given in adoption. Shattered, she found solace and dignity when the applicant herein accepted her as his lawful bride. Both got married on 04.06.2024 under Islamic law. The couple is now also blessed with another child born from their wedlock. Stepfather is in judicial custody and facing trial in FIR No. 513/2024 dated 13.08.2024 under Sections 376 (2)(n) of IPC & 6 of POCSO Act.

2. In this backdrop, the stepfather of prosecutrix had earlier lodged an FIR against the applicant herein i.e. F.I.R. No. 390/2024 dated 15.06.2024 under Sections 363 registered at P.S. Khyala. Subsequently, Section 376 of IPC and 6 of POCSO Act was added in the chargesheet. The applicant was arrested on 06.10.2024, whereas the prosecutrix herself beseeches bail for him (her husband/the applicant). Applicant before this court, has thus been under incarceration for over 11 months, as an under-trial/accused. His alleged crime being that he married a minor. Husband’s age (24 years) is not disputed. Prosecutrix claims herself to be 20 years, whereas prosecution case is that even as on today she is a minor being 15-16 years old. More of it in greater details, at appropriate stage.

3. Case as per the charge-sheet, in verbatim, reproduced hereinbelow is under :

“Brief facts of the present case are that on date 15.06.2024 during Emergency duty, on receiving DD No 40A, ASI Subhash Chand No.2880-D along with HC Vikram No. 1683/W reached the spot ******* Ravi Nagar khayala where complainant K M***** w/o S*** M****age: 38 years met ASI Subhash, whose statement was recorded which is as follows: "Statement of K M***** W/o S*** M**** R/o ************ Ravi Nagar Khyala, Delhi Age 38 Yrs. Mob No 97******7 Stated that I live at the above address with my family on rent. This is my second marriage. From my first husband I have 2 children, one boy and one girl. For quite some time I have been unwell; my husband Shri Mohan took me to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Mangol Puri where my treatment is going on. My husband used to come home after every two-three days. On 26-05-24 my husband came home, then my daughter A*****, age 14-15 years, colour-fair, height-5'2", body-medium, hair-black, eyes-black, wearing grey kurti and blue jeans with wide belt of 5 buttons, went from home at 5 AM on 26/05/24 without telling anyone. Since then I am searching but have not found my daughter. I suspect that some unknown person has lured and taken my daughter A*****. Search for my daughter be done." On basis of complainant's statement, present case vide FIR No- 390/2024 U/S 363 IPC was registered.

During investigation complainant produced her daughter victim "A"'s birth certificate which was verified, according to which victim's DOB is 05/02/2011 (13 years 7 months). During investigation ASI Subhash Chand No-2880-D checked CCTV cameras installed near missing girl's house and made lot of efforts to trace victim "A" but no clue of victim "A" was found.

During investigation on date 22.07.2024 ASI Subhash Chand No- 2880-D traced victim "A" at Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. After which medical examination of victim wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top