Introduction:

The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to Javed Alam, an accused in a controversial case involving allegations of abduction, unlawful conversion, and physical relations with a minor Hindu girl. The accusations were lodged by a member of Bajrang Dal, claiming that Alam abducted a minor girl, converted her religion, and exploited her. However, the victim, in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and in an affidavit, asserted her willingness to marry the accused and stated that she accompanied him of her own volition.

Justice Sameer Jain of the Allahabad High Court, while delivering the judgment, noted that the victim, now over 18 years old, expressed no objection to the applicant’s release on bail and declared her intent to perform her matrimonial duties. The case brings into focus the intersection of personal liberty, consent, and communal tensions in legal matters.

Arguments by the Applicant (Javed Alam):

• Consent of the Victim:

The accused’s counsel submitted that the victim willingly married the applicant and accompanied him. She stated this explicitly in her CrPC statements and affidavit.

The victim also expressed her desire to live with the applicant and resume her marital life.

• Communal Bias:

The defense argued that the FIR was lodged due to communal bias, given that the accused is Muslim and the victim is Hindu.

It was highlighted that the allegations were fabricated after members of Bajrang Dal intervened during a train journey where the couple disagreed.

• Victim’s Age and Marriage Validity:

The counsel for the accused emphasized that the victim was over 17 years old at the time of the FIR and is now over 18 years old.

The marriage was performed with mutual consent, and no force or coercion was involved.

• Prejudice in Investigation:

The defense claimed that the involvement of Bajrang Dal members influenced the narrative against the accused, leading to his prolonged custody without a fair assessment of the facts.

Arguments by the State and Legal Services Authority:

• The Seriousness of the Allegations:

The Additional Government Advocate (AGA) and the Legal Services Authority contended that the charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, and provisions of the POCSO Act and U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act are grave.

They emphasized the need for stringent measures to protect minors and deter acts of unlawful conversion and exploitation.

• Question of Victim’s Age:

The prosecution raised concerns about the victim’s age at the time of the alleged incidents, arguing that she was a minor and incapable of giving valid consent under the law.

• Public Order and Communal Harmony:

The State argued that the case involved sensitive communal dynamics, necessitating a cautious approach to avoid any public unrest or misuse of the judicial process.

• Opposition to Bail:

The prosecution opposed the bail plea, arguing that granting bail in such cases could set a negative precedent and undermine legal protections for minors.

Court’s Judgment:

Consideration of Victim’s Statements:

Justice Sameer Jain carefully analyzed the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, as well as her affidavit. The Court found that the victim consistently maintained that:

She willingly married the accused and accompanied him without any force or coercion.

She was more than 17 years old when the FIR was lodged, and she is now above 18 years old.

She has no objection to the applicant’s release and wishes to resume her marital life with him.

Legal and Factual Analysis:

• Age of the Victim:

The Court acknowledged that the victim was close to attaining the age of majority at the time of the FIR and is now legally an adult.

Her statements and conduct indicated her capacity to make decisions about her marriage and relationship.

• Prosecution’s Failure to Rebut Facts:

The Court noted that the prosecution could not effectively dispute the victim’s statements or the defence’s factual submissions.

• No Objection from Victim:

The Court considered the victim’s unequivocal stance that she desired the applicant’s release and had no objections to the same.

• Relevance of Matrimonial Intent:

The Court observed that the victim was willing to “perform her matrimonial duties,” underscoring the consensual nature of the relationship.

• Directive to Release on Bail:

In light of the above considerations, Justice Jain granted bail to the applicant, stating:

“…it reflects that the victim is willing to join the company of the applicant and to perform her matrimonial duties.”

The Court emphasized that the bail order was based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, including the victim’s consistent support for the accused and the absence of any substantial evidence of coercion or exploitation.