Daijiworld Media Network - Kochi
Kochi, May 30: The Madhya Pradesh Police on Friday informed the Kerala High Court that a charge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been added against Farmaan, husband of viral Kumbh Mela sensation Monalisa Bhosle, and argued that the couple's anticipatory bail plea is not maintainable.
The couple had approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered on a complaint filed by Monalisa's father, who alleged that his daughter had been abducted. Appearing before the bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju submitted that anticipatory bail under the CrPC could not be granted in view of the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Monalisa, a resident of Indore, gained widespread attention during the Prayagraj Kumbh Mela for her striking appearance and captivating smile. She later travelled to Kerala in March and reportedly sought police protection to live with her boyfriend Farmaan. Their marriage was subsequently conducted under official supervision.
The marriage later sparked controversy after the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes alleged that Monalisa was around 16 years old at the time of the marriage and that forged documents may have been used to facilitate the wedding. Based on these findings, Madhya Pradesh Police registered a case against Farmaan under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Allegations of 'love jihad' were also raised against him.
The Kerala High Court had earlier granted interim protection from arrest to Farmaan.
During Friday's hearing, ASG Raju informed the court that Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act had been invoked in the case. He argued that Section 18 of the Act bars anticipatory bail in such cases.
"The offence falls under the Atrocities Act. Section 3(2)(v) is invoked. Because of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, the anticipatory bail is not maintainable. The victim belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community. The first petitioner does not belong to the SC/ST community," Raju submitted.
The couple also sought permission to amend their anticipatory bail petition. However, the Madhya Pradesh Police opposed the move, contending that the proposed amendments were intended to rectify deficiencies already pointed out by the prosecution during earlier hearings.
Raju argued that the facts sought to be introduced through the amendment were already known to the petitioners when the original plea was filed and therefore could not be treated as subsequent developments. He further alleged that the couple had concealed important facts and was attempting to fill gaps in their case after objections were raised by the state.
Responding to the arguments, Justice Kauser Edappagath observed, "Already there were sufficient pleadings, but the exact wording was not there."
Senior advocate Sasindran, appearing for the couple, defended the amendment application and said the bail plea had been filed in Kerala because the couple faced serious threats over their interfaith marriage. Referring to photographs allegedly showing marriage pictures being burnt by "fundamentalists", he submitted that the couple feared travelling to Madhya Pradesh.
"The very reason for filing the bail application is that I cannot go to Madhya Pradesh," Sasindran argued. He further stated that despite the interim protection from arrest, another case had been registered under the Child Marriage Act.
After hearing both sides, the High Court extended the interim protection from arrest granted to the couple till June 2. The court also said it would hear further arguments if it decides to allow the amendment application.
The Madhya Pradesh government had earlier challenged the maintainability of the anticipatory bail plea, contending that such applications must be filed before courts in the state where the FIR is registered. Since the case was registered in Madhya Pradesh, the state argued that the Kerala High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the plea.