Delhi High Court says ‘marriage just a ploy’, rejects POCSO accused’s bail plea despite ‘nikahnama’

“It is only after the accused was arrested and was in jail that he agreed to get married to her, so..his interim bail application was disposed of, directing that he be taken in custody before the Qazi, who performed the marriage ceremony. Clearly, the marriage was performed by the accused simply as a ploy to get himself bailed out, having committed repeated rapes of a minor girl,” the April 9 order read. 

The high court was hearing the bail plea of the accused, who is charged with repeated sexual assault of a minor, allegedly followed by pregnancy and abortion.

Justice Girish Kathpalia noted that the survivor is a law student but claimed that she did not understand the content of the FIR.

It was placed on record by the prosecution that, despite specific and detailed allegations of rape, the survivor, after attaining the age of majority, has opted to get married to the accused.  

‘Married to save himself’

• The Delhi High Court noted that the accused got married to the survivor through Nikahnama in 2026 after being arrested and during his jail time.
• However, the court said that it does not absolve the accused of his repeated acts of rape when the survivor was a minor in age. 
• The high court noted that at the time of commencement of sexual relations between the accused and the survivor, the latter was aged only 16 years, and when she attained the age of majority in the year 2024.
• However, the accused refused to get married to her, which led to the present FIR, the court pointed out. 
• The Delhi High Court did not find the survivor so gullible that she signed such a serious complaint and gave it to the local police, that too after getting the same translated from English to Hindi without reading its contents. 
• The high court took note of the fact that the survivor does not divulge the identity of the advocate, who allegedly drafted that complaint, to whom she allegedly paid fees as well. 
• The court found credence in the argument of the prosecution that, prima facie, the testimony of the survivor appears to be false. 
• The high court noted that the survivor claimed she did not retract her allegations before the magistrate as her advocate had warned her that doing so could land her in jail.
• The court found this statement, coming from a person not an illiterate but a law student, is difficult to believe. 

Minor, assault and marriage 

The case stemmed from an FIR registered on the statement of the survivor, alleging that at the age of 16 years, she developed a friendship with the accused over Facebook and on his request, she accompanied him to a flat of his friend. 

She further mentioned that the accused served her a soft drink and chicken, which she consumed, and she gradually lost consciousness. 

Upon regaining consciousness, she believed that she had been sexually assaulted by the accused. At that stage, the survivor claimed that the accused assured to get married to her after she attained the age of 18 years. Thereafter, the accused allegedly went out to bring some painkillers and gave the same to her.

The accused allegedly assured her that he would marry her after she turned 18 and thereafter continued to engage in sexual relations with her on multiple occasions. The prosecution further alleged that during this period, she became pregnant twice and the pregnancies were terminated.

It was further alleged that after she attained majority, the accused refused to marry her, which led to the registration of the FIR.

However, the accused later got married to the survivor in February and sought bail from the Delhi High Court.

Married survivor subsequently

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Hemraj Murmu submitted that subsequent to registration of the case, the accused got married to the survivor, so it is a fit case to release him on bail. 

In this regard, the counsel for the accused also placed reliance on the testimony of the survivor recorded by the trial court and submitted that she never had any grievance with the accused. 

The counsel also added that the survivor had even mentioned that she was not even aware of the contents of her complaint, because the same was drafted by her counsel in the Saket Courts. 

The counsel for the survivor also supported the accused, where the survivor submitted that the contents of the FIR are false and that she was not aware of the same, because she did not read the FIR. 

However, the survivor also stated that initially her counsel had drafted the complaint in English, but on her insistence, he translated the same into Hindi, and she submitted the same before the local police authority. 

Survivor, a law student

Assistant public prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal opposed the bail application, disclosing that the survivor is not an illiterate person but is a student of law, so it cannot be believed that she was not aware of the contents of her complaint. 

It was also submitted by the counsel that this is a fit case in which the police need to take action against the survivor in view of her testimony before the trial court. Sabharwal mentioned that granting bail in such cases would encourage such lawlessness with impunity.