Bail in POCSO/“Marriage” Prosecution Where Minor’s Age Was Allegedly Fraudulently Misrepresented Through a Forged Aadhaar Card (Parity With Co-accused)

1. Introduction

In Chand Pal v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore; Order dated 03-12-2025, M.Cr.C. No. 52206 of 2025), the applicant Chand Pal sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 / Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The prosecution arose out of Crime No.593/2025, Police Station Vijaynagar, District Indore, invoking multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3/4 and 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act.

The core factual controversy was that the applicant (about 34 years) allegedly married and had sexual relations with the prosecutrix, stated by the prosecution to be 15 years old. The defence case for bail pivoted on an alleged fraud: the prosecutrix’s paternal uncle and aunt purportedly suppressed her true age by using a forged Aadhaar Card, including an asserted change of her name and date of birth.

The key issue before the Court was whether, despite POCSO allegations, the applicant made out a case for bail on the basis of: (i) alleged deception regarding age through forged identity documentation, (ii) a cross-FIR by the applicant’s side alleging fraud and theft, and (iii) parity since an alleged forger had already been granted bail.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court allowed the applicant’s first bail application. Without commenting on merits, it directed release on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one solvent surety of like amount, subject to regular appearance and compliance with conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) CrPC, 1973.

The Court’s operative basis was the material indicating: (a) an FIR from the applicant’s side alleging fraud by the prosecutrix and her uncle and aunt (who were also accused in the present case), (b) suppression of the prosecutrix’s true age via a forged Aadhaar Card, and (c) the fact that co-accused Devchand (allegedly involved in forging Aadhaar) had already been granted bail.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The order cites and relies materially on the Court’s own prior bail order:

  • M.Cr.C. No.53069/2025 dated 02.12.2025 (bail granted to Devchand).

While not a “precedent” in the classical ratio decidendi sense (as it is another bail order), it functioned as a decisive parity comparator. The Court treated the earlier grant of bail to the alleged forger as relevant to assessing whether continued custody of the applicant was warranted, especially when the defence narrative was that the applicant too was a victim of the same fraudulent scheme concerning the prosecutrix’s age.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning reflects typical bail adjudication under Section 483 BNSS / Section 439 CrPC, where the Court weighs custody against the case circumstances, without recording findings on guilt. Three strands are prominent:

  1. Fraud-as-context in a POCSO bail determination: The Court took note of the defence contention that the prosecutrix’s uncle and aunt allegedly produced a forged Aadhaar Card to misrepresent the prosecutrix as major (DOB stated as 01.12.2002) and even change her name. This materially shaped the Court’s assessment that the applicant “has made out a case for grant of bail,” because the applicant’s conduct was asserted to be induced by deception regarding age.

    Importantly, the Court did not hold that such alleged deception is a defence to POCSO at trial; rather, it treated it as a bail-relevant circumstance that mitigated the immediacy of continued incarceration.
  2. Cross-FIR and competing narratives: The Court relied on the existence of the FIR lodged by the applicant’s side at Police Station Chhipa Barod, District Baran, Rajasthan, alleging fraud and related misconduct (including alleged payment of Rs.2,10,000/- through PhonePe, alleged intoxicant mixing, and alleged theft of jewellery/valuables). This cross-case suggested that the relationship and events were contested and that the prosecution narrative was not the only plausible account, supporting the Court’s conclusion that bail could be granted “without commenting on merits.”
  3. Parity with co-accused: A central justification was parity: Devchand, said to be involved in the forged Aadhaar, had already been granted bail by the same Court. Once the Court accepted that forging/suppressing age was a significant axis of the case, it considered it inconsistent to keep the applicant in custody when the alleged document-forger was on bail (subject to the usual caveat that parity is not mechanical but contextual).

The State’s opposition—based on the prosecutrix being 15 years old, the applicant being 34, and allegations such as the prosecutrix not being permitted to speak to her father—was expressly noted. However, the Court ultimately prioritised the fraud/parity matrix as sufficient for bail, coupled with standard safeguards under Section 437(3) CrPC.

3.3 Impact

Although a bail order does not finally settle substantive criminal liability, the decision carries practical significance for bail jurisprudence in POCSO cases arising from purported “marriages”:

  • Misrepresentation of age through identity documents can be treated as a strong bail factor, especially when supported by contemporaneous allegations (cross-FIR) and when the alleged fabricator has obtained bail.
  • The order underscores that parity can have decisive weight even in serious offences, provided the Court finds the comparator’s role connected to a key factual pivot (here, alleged age suppression/forgery).
  • The Court’s approach may influence future bail applications to more frequently foreground documentary age disputes and the conduct of guardians/relatives in cases where age is said to have been concealed to facilitate a “marriage.”

At the same time, the order does not dilute POCSO’s protective framework at trial; it explicitly refrains from merits and uses bail conditions to address trial attendance and process integrity.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Section 483 BNSS / Section 439 CrPC (Bail by High Court): These provisions empower the High Court to grant regular bail to a person in custody. The Court assesses factors like seriousness, evidence, risk of absconding, and interference with witnesses—without conducting a full trial.
  • POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act): A special law protecting children (persons under 18) from sexual offences, with stringent provisions. In many POCSO contexts, “consent” of a minor is not legally valid for the alleged sexual acts; however, at the bail stage courts may still consider surrounding circumstances (like alleged deception about age) to decide whether custody is necessary.
  • Parity: A principle that similarly placed accused persons should generally receive similar bail treatment, unless distinguishing factors exist.
  • Section 437(3) CrPC conditions: Standard bail conditions (e.g., attending court, not tampering with evidence, not threatening witnesses) that aim to protect the investigation/trial while allowing liberty.
  • “Without commenting on merits”: The Court signals it is not deciding guilt/innocence; it is only deciding whether pre-trial incarceration is necessary.

5. Conclusion

The High Court’s order in Chand Pal v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh articulates a clear bail-relevant approach in a POCSO prosecution arising from a purported marriage: where the record suggests suppression of the prosecutrix’s age through a forged Aadhaar Card, a cross-FIR alleging fraud, and parity with a co-accused already on bail, the accused may be granted bail subject to strict statutory conditions.

The decision’s broader significance lies in recognising that, even in grave child-protection prosecutions, bail adjudication can legitimately account for documentary manipulation and competing transactional narratives—while leaving the ultimate determination of POCSO liability to trial.