On Thursday (13th February), an intriguing legal decision was made by the Bombay High Court. The court granted bail [pdf] to a man named Mohammed Ajaan Khan, who was accused of a serious crime involving a minor. Khan faced charges for the alleged rape and subsequent impregnation of a young girl, not once but twice over a period that spanned 15 months.

The details of the case paint a grim picture. The victim, according to the court documents, was just 16 years old during the time of the alleged offenses, while Khan was a 22-year-old account. This harrowing situation reportedly unfolded between January 2023 and April 2024, a period where the life of a young girl was profoundly affected by the actions implicated in this case.

Following the revelations and complaints made by those close to the victim, a First Information Report (FIR) was promptly lodged against Khan. This legal step was taken to ensure that the law could address the allegations made against him.

Khan found himself facing charges under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Sections 376, 376 (3), 376(2)(n), alongside charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. These sections deal with various aspects of sexual offenses, emphasizing the severity of the accusations.

In response to these charges, Mohammed Ajaan Khan sought relief through the judicial system by filing a bail application with the Bombay High Court. His plea was heard by a single-judge Bench presided over by Justice Milind N Jadhav. The court's decision to grant bail has sparked discussions and debates about the legal interpretations of consent, age, and the nature of relationships when it comes to the law.

The Background of the Case

The story behind this legal battle is as intricate as it is troubling. The minor victim had known Mohammed Ajaan Khan for 4 years and had been in what she described as a 'love relationship' with him for approximately 2 years. According to her police complaint, the turn of events began when Khan deceitfully invited her to his house, not for the promised excursion but under the pretense of it. She alleged that he then forced her to have sex.

The young girl revealed that she had initially kept her silence, but the pattern of abuse persisted, leading to repeated violations of her rights and dignity. The ordeal took a more distressing turn in November 2023 when she discovered she was 8 weeks pregnant. Faced with no choice, she underwent an abortion/MTP - a procedure that must have been both physically and emotionally taxing for someone so young.

Unfortunately, the cycle of abuse did not stop there. By April 2024, the victim found herself pregnant once again, necessitating another round of abortion. The repeated physical and psychological trauma this young girl endured cannot be overstated.

In defense, Khan's lawyer painted a different picture, arguing that the relationship was consensual, describing it as a 'consensual love relationship' which was being retrospectively given a 'criminal flavor'. He emphasized that there was 'no evidence' of force or coercion. Additionally, he brought attention to the significant delay of 1 year and 3 months between the first pregnancy and the filing of the FIR, suggesting this delay could question the narrative of the case.

On the other side, the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) argued fervently on behalf of the victim. He underscored the fact that she was a minor at the time of these incidents, making any notion of consent legally irrelevant. He contended that the victim was lured into this relationship, highlighting that her age made her consent immaterial in the legal context of the case.

The APP also shed light on why there was a delay in the complaint - pointing out the 'immense mental agony' caused by the violence she suffered and the traumatic experience of undergoing two abortions. This argument was meant to provide context to the delay, explaining it as a result of the profound impact this ordeal had on the victim's psyche.

Verdict in the Case

On Thursday (13th February), the Bombay High Court delivered its verdict through Justice Milind N Jadhav, who meticulously weighed the facts of the case. It was acknowledged that the victim was a minor at the time of the incidents, while the accused, Mohammed Ajaan Khan, was an adult.

Justice Jadhav observed in his order, “They were known to each other and as per statement of prosecutrix in the FIR and statement recorded before the Medical Officer it is clearly borne out that they both were in a love relationship for the past two years and were in a physical relationship for 15 months prior to filing of FIR despite she being below 18 years of age. This fact gets reinforced due to her categorical admissions and her twin pregnancies and MTPs which followed subsequently.”

He further elaborated, “This prima facie shows and reflects that the acts between the parties were consensual in nature. From the record it is seen that she was in love with the Applicant and therefore developed physical relations with him as admitted by her.”

In light of these observations, the Bombay High Court decided to grant bail to Mohammed Ajaan Khan. The court's rationale was based on the lack of criminal antecedents in the present case and the apparent absence of violence between the parties. The court articulated, “The material placed before me do not indicate towards any force being engaged by Applicant over the prosecutrix during their relationship. The case appears to be consensual in nature that had come to the knowledge of her mother upon prosecutrix becoming pregnant not once, but twice. Applicant has made out a strong case for grant of bail since a boy and girl of similar age group involved in a long standing love relationship by consensus does not make it an offense of a nature to justify his custody, the Applicant is not a sexual predator but a young person who was involved in a consensual relationship which is admitted by the prosecutrix.”

The judgment also considered the age of the parties involved, suggesting that both the victim and the accused were at an age where they could reasonably understand the implications of their actions. Justice Jadhav pointed out the potential regressive impact of incarceration on young offenders and referenced previous Supreme Court decisions favoring the release of young inpiduals on bail.

However, the court did not grant bail without conditions. Justice Milind N Jadhav imposed several stipulations including the deposit of a bond of ₹15000, ensuring Khan's cooperation during the trial, obtaining prior permission before leaving Maharashtra, among others, to keep the legal process intact while allowing Khan his freedom.