Anticipatory bail granted based on marital relationship despite statutory offences, emphasizing case-specific discretionary considerations.

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

......….............................................

B.A. No.7655 of 2025 …................................................

Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2025

ORDER

This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.635 of 2025 of Palode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 75(1)(i). 64(1) and 332(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6 , 5(l) and 5(j)(ii)

of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 .

3. According to the prosecution, the accused and the victim were in a romantic relationship, and their marriage was solemnised on 25.05.2025 as per Hindu religious rites, in the presence of the parents of the accused. Subsequent to the marriage, during a medical check-up, it was realised that the victim was more than 5 months pregnant, which indicates that the sexual relationship between the accused and the victim had commenced prior to the victim attaining the age of majority and hence accused committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely arrayed as an accused in the aforesaid crime.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

7. Petitioner and the victim are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised on 25.05.2025 as per the Hindu religious rites, in the presence of the parents of the accused. After the marriage, when the victim went for medical check-up, it was realised that she was pregnant by more than 5 months. Calculating the period of pregnancy it was realised that the sexual intercourse would have taken place prior to the victim attaining the age of 18 years. Hence the hospital authorities informed the Police and accordingly a crime was registered.

8. The statement of the victim, which was handed over across the Bar by the learned Public Prosecutor, indicates that petitioner and the victim were in a romantic relationship, which has culminated in their marriage. However, the gestational life of the feotus indicated that she was 5½ months pregnant as on the date of medical examination and, therefore, since her date of birth is 22.05.2007, she would have attained the age of majority only on 22.05.2025. Viewed in the above perspective, petitioner appears to have committed the offence.

9. InSushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, [(2020) 5 SCC 1] , it was held that, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.

10. Taking note of the marital relationship existing between the petitioner and the victim and since there is nothing to indicate that the marriage was entered into for the purpose of avoiding a criminal case, I am of the view that petitioner can be protected with an order of anticipatory bail. However, limited custody has to be directed as observed in Sushila Aggarwal’s case [supra].

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating OfÏcer on 07.07.2025 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and if needed, again on 08.07.2025 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and sha