Jurisdictional Challenge in Bail Proceedings
The Madhya Pradesh government is contesting the Kerala High Court's authority to hear an anticipatory bail plea filed by Monalisa Bhosle and her husband, Mohammed Farmaan Khan. MP contends the plea should be lodged in Madhya Pradesh, where the initial First Information Report (FIR) was registered, alleging Bhosle was a minor at the time of their marriage.
Interim Protection Extended Amidst Legal Scrutiny
Justice Kauser Edappagath of the Kerala High Court has granted the couple continued interim protection from arrest. This protection is in effect until the next hearing on May 29, following preliminary review of marriage documentation presented by the petitioners. However, the Madhya Pradesh government, represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, argues that regular anticipatory bail is not within Kerala's purview for this case.
Legal Precedent and Procedural Questions
The MP government's stance is rooted in the principle that bail pleas should typically be filed in the jurisdiction of the FIR. Raju highlighted that the couple had already engaged with the Madhya Pradesh High Court regarding alleged age record tampering, suggesting a clear avenue for seeking relief there. The court noted the FIR itself has not yet been provided to the Kerala High Court, a crucial document for determining the plea's maintainability. The Supreme Court's ruling in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka generally supports filing bail applications where the FIR originates, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Background of the Case and Public Profile
Monalisa Bhosle gained public attention through viral videos of her selling beads at the Kumbh Mela. The couple met during a film shoot, subsequently married in Kerala. The controversy involves allegations of Bhosle being underage at the time of marriage, which could lead to charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. An inquiry has reportedly been initiated by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes.
