Kumbh-fame Monalisa's husband charged under SC/ST Act, police inform court

Madhya Pradesh Police on Friday informed the Kerala High Court that a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act had been added against Farmaan, the husband of viral Kumbh Mela sensation Monalisa Bhosle, and argued that the couple’s anticipatory bail plea was therefore not maintainable.

The couple moved the court seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered on a complaint filed by Bhosle’s father, who alleged that his daughter had been abducted. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju informed the bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath that anticipatory bail under the CrPC would not be maintainable in view of the provisions of the SC/ST Act.

Monalisa, from Indore, shot to fame during the Prayagraj Kumbh Mela for her captivating smile and striking eyes. She travelled to Kerala in March and reportedly sought police protection to live with her boyfriend Farmaan, following which the couple’s marriage was held under official supervision.

The marriage snowballed into a massive controversy after the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes alleged that the woman was allegedly around 16 years old at the time of the marriage and that forged documents may have been used to facilitate the wedding. Following these findings, Madhya Pradesh Police registered a case against Farmaan under the Pocso Act. Allegations of 'love jihad' were also raised against Farmaan.

When the matter came before the High Court earlier, interim protection from arrest had been granted to the husband.

During the hearing on Friday, the ASG submitted, "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".

Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act provides that any person committing an offence punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more against a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe shall be liable for life imprisonment and fine.

During the proceedings, the couple sought permission to amend their anticipatory bail plea. The Madhya Pradesh Police opposed the move, contending that the proposed amendments were aimed at curing deficiencies already pointed out by the prosecution during earlier hearings.

ASG Raju argued that the facts sought to be introduced through the amendment were already within the petitioners’ knowledge at the time of filing the original plea and therefore could not be treated as subsequent developments. He accused the couple of hiding important facts and trying to cover the gaps in their case after the state raised objections.

Responding to the objection, 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 plea and said the bail application had been filed in Kerala because the couple faced serious threats over their interfaith marriage. Referring to photographs allegedly showing marriage pictures being burnt and attacked by "fundamentalists", he argued 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 submitted, adding that even after interim protection from arrest was granted, another case under the Child Marriage Act had been registered.

After hearing the parties, the court extended the interim order protecting the couple from arrest till June 2 and said it would hear further arguments if it decided to allow the amendment application.

The Madhya Pradesh government had earlier questioned the maintainability of the anticipatory bail plea itself, arguing that regular anticipatory bail applications must be filed before courts in the state where the FIR is registered. Since the case was lodged in Madhya Pradesh, the state contended that the Kerala High Court could not entertain the plea.