By Pradyumna Satish 

The complainant, the wife of the applicant, filed an FIR on 16.11.2023 based on her application dated 06.11.2023. She alleged that she was married to the applicant six years ago and gave birth to a daughter, which led to her husband’s persistent anger and harassment. He allegedly beat her daily after consuming alcohol, citing insufficient dowry despite adequate dowry being given by her father. After the birth of a girl child, the harassment intensified, with threats to her life, and her in-laws expressed their intent to remarry the applicant. Due to the abuse, she moved to her parental home. 

Additionally, she accused the applicant of abducting her 16-year-old sister from her parental home on 27.02.2023, leading to his arrest and imprisonment. After securing bail, he allegedly lured her younger minor sister from Indian Bank, Mau, on 23.08.2023, attempting to take her towards Prayagraj, but was spotted by her nephew. A complaint regarding this incident was filed on 25.08.2023, but no police action was taken. 

The court went against the applicant, citing the seriousness of the allegations, the legal presumptions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the broader impact of his conduct on family and societal norms. It emphasized that the victim, being a minor aged 17, could not legally consent, making her statements in favor of the applicant irrelevant under the law. Moreover,under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the burden of proving innocence rests on the accused, meaning that unless the applicant could disprove the allegations, the court must presume his culpability. This legal presumption, combined with the nature of the allegations, weighed heavily against him.  

The court also noted that this was not an isolated incident but a repeated pattern of misconduct. The applicant had previously been accused of enticing the same minor victim on 27.02.2023, leading to an FIR registered under Sections 363 and 366A IPC. Despite facing legal consequences, he allegedly repeated the act on 23.08.2023, further reinforcing concerns about his conduct. The repetition of such offenses indicated a deliberate and sustained course of action rather than an isolated misunderstanding or false implication.  

Furthermore, the court also took note of the implications of the applicant’s actions and the breach of familial trust. As the husband of the victim’s elder sister, the applicant was expected to uphold familial integrity, yet he allegedly engaged in an illicit relationship with his minor sister-in-law. This not only violated his marital responsibilities but also inflicted severe emotional distress on his wife, who had already accused him of harassment and abuse. His conduct also strained the relationship between the two sisters, causing significant familial discord.  

The court highlighted that such behavior disrupts not only individual relationships but also the larger family structure, leading to instability and harm. In addition to these factors, the court considered the applicant’s prior criminal history, including a pending case under Sections 363 and 366A IPC.  

Therefore, the history of his harassment and threats against his wife, along with allegations of repeatedly luring her minor sister, demonstrated a disregard for both legal and moral responsibilities. Given the seriousness of the offense, the severity of potential punishment, and the risk that the applicant might misuse bail if granted, the court found no justification for his release. The bail application was accordingly quashed. 

Case Title: Devideen v. State of U.P. and ors. 

Citation: Crl. M. Bail Appln. 36853/2024 

Click here to read/download the judgement.