Mahakumbh viral girl’s husband denied anticipatory bail:Court cites evidence tampering risk, says, ‘Girl’s age will be decided during trial’

A Special POCSO Court in Mandleshwar, Khargone district, has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of the husband of the woman popularly referred to as the “viral girl.” Special Judge Ravi Jharola ruled that the accused could not be granted relief because he is absconding and there is a possibility that he may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The case stems from an FIR lodged by the girl’s father on March 25, alleging that the accused lured his minor daughter to Kerala on the pretext of offering her opportunities in films. According to the complaint, after keeping her with him for some time, the accused persuaded her to marry him. Defence claims marriage was consensual During Wednesday’s hearing, conducted through video conferencing, defence counsel Jerry Lopez and advocate Lakhan Bhavare argued that the woman had accompanied the accused of her own free will and that the marriage was solemnised with mutual consent. The defence further contended that she had declared herself an adult before Kerala’s Thampanoor Police Station. Therefore, they argued, the allegations against her husband were false and he should be granted anticipatory bail. Prosecution relies on birth certificate Special Public Prosecutor P.S. Alawa and advocate Vijay Joshi, representing the victim’s mother, produced her birth certificate before the court. They argued that she was a minor at the time of the marriage and that the documents relied upon by the accused to establish her age were not legally valid. Court says investigation is incomplete After hearing both sides and examining the case diary, the court observed that the police investigation is still underway and the victim’s statement is yet to be recorded. The court also noted that the accused has not cooperated with the investigation and remains absconding. Granting anticipatory bail at this stage, it said, could enable him to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The court further clarified that the woman’s actual age will be determined during the trial on the basis of evidence. Kerala High Court had granted transit bail Earlier, on June 3, the Kerala High Court granted the accused one month’s transit bail after prima facie treating the woman as an adult. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that her birth certificate recorded her date of birth as January 1, 2008, indicating that she was a major. However, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Madhya Pradesh Police, argued that the birth certificate was forged and that the woman was, in fact, a minor. The High Court declined to accept this contention, noting that apart from the birth certificate, her voter ID card and bank passbook also indicated that she was an adult. The woman herself had consistently claimed to be a major and had submitted an affidavit stating that she had married the accused voluntarily. Marriage validity also questioned In their joint petition before the Kerala High Court, the couple claimed that they feared an honour killing if they returned to Madhya Pradesh because they belonged to different religions. They also argued that without protection from arrest, they would neither be able to travel safely nor approach a court in Madhya Pradesh for bail. Countering the plea, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued that the woman is Hindu while the accused is Muslim, and therefore their temple marriage was not legally valid. He further contended that the local marriage registrar had no authority to issue a marriage certificate in such circumstances. How the relationship began According to the case records, the woman met the accused during the shooting of a film in Kerala. The two gradually developed a relationship and got married in March 2026. The marriage sparked controversy after the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) objected to it, claiming that the woman was only 16 years old at the time of the marriage and that forged documents had been used. Following the complaint, Khargone Police registered a case against her husband under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Separate POCSO case against film director On April 29, 2026, the woman filed an FIR in Kerala against film director Sanoj Mishra and three others under the POCSO Act. Ernakulam Central Police registered the case and launched an investigation. In her complaint, she alleged that when she was a minor, Mishra sexually exploited her during the shooting of the film The Diary of Manipur after promising her acting opportunities. Among the accused is VHP leader and advocate Anil Vilayil from Kerala. She has accused him of defaming her on social media. The identities of two other accused have not yet been disclosed. Director calls allegations a conspiracy Film director Sanoj Mishra has denied all allegations, calling them part of a well-planned conspiracy. He claimed that he was being targeted for speaking out on issues such as “love jihad.” Mishra further alleged that the actress was lured to Kerala, married using forged documents while she was still a minor, and that he was now being falsely implicated for raising objections. Conflicting birth certificates at the centre of dispute The marriage has remained controversial from the outset. Initially, it was linked to allegations of “love jihad,” while the woman’s family maintained that she was a minor. The investigation found discrepancies in birth certificates issued by the Maheshwar Municipal Council. According to medical records, she was born on December 30, 2009, making her 16 years, 2 months and 12 days old on the date of her marriage, March 11, 2026. Subsequently, authorities directed that the earlier birth certificate showing her date of birth as January 1, 2008, be cancelled. Family alleges she was lured into marriage The woman’s parents have alleged that the accused manipulated and persuaded her into marrying him. The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes’ inquiry also concluded that she was a minor at the time of the marriage. Based on these findings, a POCSO case was registered against her husband, who was required to appear before the police for questioning. Woman accused parents of harassment In a statement recorded at Kerala’s Thampanoor Police Station, the woman accused her parents of harassing her. She claimed that her family was pressuring her to marry her cousin, whom she considered a brother. According to her statement, the accused supported her during a period of emotional distress. Their friendship eventually turned into a romantic relationship, and the two married at a temple in Kerala in the presence of local residents.