The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a 24-year-old man accused of marrying a minor, with a critical discrepancy in official age documents playing a decisive role in the verdict. The case, originating from Raichur district, highlights the complex interplay between documentation, legal interpretation, and deep-rooted social issues.
Court Weighs Conflicting Age Proofs
The accused, a tribal resident of Deosugur in Raichur taluk, had been in judicial custody since August 4, 2025. His arrest followed a complaint by a local panchayat development officer who found him living with a girl alleged to be 16 years old. A case was registered at the Raichur women police station under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act.
In his bail plea, the man presented a compelling contradiction in the girl's official records. While her school documents listed her date of birth as July 26, 2009, which would make her a minor, her Aadhaar card showed March 26, 2007. The latter date would indicate she was an adult at the time of the marriage. The defence argued that the petitioner had bona fide relied on the Aadhaar card as proof of age, a belief that should afford him legal protection.
Judicial Reasoning and Broader Social Directive
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, who presided over the case, granted bail after considering several factors. The court noted that the girl's mother, who was named as a co-accused, had already been granted bail, creating a ground for parity. Furthermore, with the investigation complete and the chargesheet filed, the judge emphasized that continued incarceration amidst a serious dispute over the victim's age would violate the petitioner's fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Magadum cited the Supreme Court's precedent in the Sanjay Chandra case, reiterating that bail should be the rule and can be denied only if there is a clear risk of the accused absconding, tampering with evidence, or repeating the offence. The judge made a significant observation about the social context, noting that child marriages continue to recur in Raichur district due to deep-rooted socio-economic backwardness and illiteracy, despite stringent laws.
Moving beyond the individual case, the court issued a directive for systemic intervention. Justice Magadum ordered the district legal services authority to conduct extensive awareness programmes and workshops on the prevention of child marriage in the region, calling for a broader socio-legal response to the issue.
Strict Bail Conditions Imposed
The bail relief was not unconditional. The court imposed strict safeguards to protect the girl's welfare during the trial's pendency. The victim's mother has been directed to file a formal undertaking ensuring that the girl will reside with her and will not cohabit with the petitioner until she attains majority, as per the age reflected in the chargesheet.
Similarly, the petitioner must undertake that he will not claim any marital rights, nor attempt to influence, intimidate, or coerce the girl until her testimony is fully and formally recorded before the trial court. These conditions aim to balance the liberty of the accused with the need to ensure a fair trial and protect the alleged victim.
This ruling underscores the legal complexities that arise from discrepancies in India's foundational identity documents and the judiciary's role in navigating them while addressing persistent social challenges.
