Allahabad High Court Denies Bail to Man Accused of Illicit Relationship with Minor Sister-in-Law, Cites Grave Breach of Familial Trust

Post By 24law
January 30, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Allahabad High Court,recently, refused bail to a man accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for enticing his minor sister-in-law away on two separate occasions. The Court highlighted the grave implications of the applicant’s actions on familial trust and moral integrity, emphasizing that such behavior disrupts not just the marital relationship but the broader family unit. The case involves Devideen, who sought bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He is facing charges under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 363, 366A, 427, and 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations include dowry harassment, marital abuse, and exploitation of his wife’s minor sister, aged 17 years.

Prosecution Allegations

The prosecution alleged that the applicant had been abusive toward his wife, harassing and assaulting her over dowry issues, which worsened after she gave birth to a girl child. The wife left her matrimonial home and filed an FIR in November 2023, alleging that the applicant lured her minor sister away on two occasions. The first incident occurred in February 2023, when the accused allegedly enticed the minor away from her parental home. He was arrested and imprisoned but later released on bail. Despite this, the applicant allegedly repeated the act in August 2023, attempting to take the minor to Prayagraj, as witnessed by a family member. The minor’s medical examination and statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC corroborated the prosecution’s claims.

Court's Observations

While denying bail, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh emphasized: "This Court cannot overlook the gravity of the conduct of the applicant, where he is engaged in an illicit relationship with his minor sister-in-law. Such behaviour not only constitutes a breach of the sacred bond of marriage but also represents an egregious violation of familial trust and moral integrity."

The Court observed that the sanctity of marriage is essential for societal and familial harmony. The applicant’s actions inflicted severe trauma on his wife, shattered her trust and dignity, and irreparably strained the relationship between two sisters. The bench further stated: "The act of the applicant reflects a disregard for these foundational principles and for his responsibilities both as a husband and as a member of the family. Such conduct is unequivocally condemned by both societal norms and the law."

Defense Contentions Rejected

The applicant’s counsel argued that the victim willingly accompanied the accused and that the FIR was delayed. They also pointed to a financial dispute between the families as the motive behind the allegations. However, the Court dismissed these arguments, highlighting the minor victim’s inability to provide legal consent and the applicant’s criminal history, which included a prior case under Sections 363 and 366A of the IPC. The Court referred to Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which presumes the guilt of the accused unless proven otherwise, and underlined the severity of the applicant’s conduct.

Verdict

In its order dated January 2, 2025, the Court concluded: "Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, criminal history of the applicant, nature of injury and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail." The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial’s outcome.