Kerala HC Reserves Order On Transit Anticipatory Bail Plea By Kumbh Mela Star, Husband In MP Police FIR Over Father's Abduction Allegation

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (June 2) reserved verdict in the transit anticipatory bail plea moved by viral Kumbh Mela star and her husband in an FIR lodged after her father filed a complaint before Madhya Pradesh police alleging abduction of his daughter.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath reserved his verdict after hearing arguments by the parties. Earlier in the day the court had permitted the petitioners' to amend their anticipatory bail petition. The court said that it will pronounce the verdict on Wednesday. 

During the hearing in the post lunch session, the court orally asked if the husband was the lone accused in the matter. To this the petitioners' counsel said that the wife had been arrayed as a victim. 

He however said, "Marriage solemnised in Neyyattinkara in Kerala. They are film actors. They fell in love. The father of the second petitioner wanted her to marry a 36-year-old cousin. Father was also agreeable with marriage but after reaching MP, some fundamentalists won him over and he made a complaint". 

The counsel said that the entire State machinery was against the petitioners, wherein the wife's birth certificate had been "forged" to make her look like a minor.

He said that the wife's date of birth was January 1, 2008 and as on the date of marriage she had become a major. The counsel further drew the court's attention to the Aadhar card, Election ID and bank account details to argue that the second petitioner (wife) is a major.

He said, "Second petitioner was born at home, not at hospital. Hospital records were fabricated to make me a minor". 

At this stage the court orally said, "Lucky that you are in Kerala"; to this the petitioners' counsel said, "That is the only reason we are alive now". 

The petitioners' counsel claimed that there was a "threat of honour killing" if the couple went back to Madhya Pradesh, adding that the couple had filed a writ petition through a lawyer in the MP High Court to challenge cancellation of birth certificate.

"I have not gone to MP to file this. I swore the affidavit in Kerala," the counsel added. 

He said that even provisions of Child Marriage Prohibition Act had been incorporated to claim that the second petitioner is a minor. He however said that he can prima facie, convince the high court that the second petitioner was not a minor but a major. 

He argued that there was a "conspiracy against the petitioners" even though they had got married lawfully, adding that provisions of the SC/ST Act invoked against the husband would also not stand. 

At this stage the court orally said: "Prima facie case has been made out that the Court can entertain. I am only considering your case for transit bail". 

The petitioners' counsel argued that even though the second petitioner (wife) is not accused, she would be taken back to Madhya Pradesh "as a victim".

He also said that the second petitioner was working in a Telugu movie, for which some filming is left. He however said that top police officers from Madhya Pradesh were in Kerala for the last three weeks and sought protection to her for the same so that she is not taken back to Madhya Pradesh. 

The court however said that it cannot grant this relief since it had only bail jurisdiction. At this stage the court orally asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju if the second petitioner had been arrayed as an accused, to which Raju responded in the negative. 

"In the copy of the FIR furnished to me only S. 137(2) of BNS is mentioned. Now you say that some other offences, child marriage, SC/ST Act?..." the court asked. To which Raju said that the FIR sections were not final. 

Arguing that there had been a deception, Raju emphasized that there had been forgery of records and pointed to Section 335(Making a false document) BNS. The court asked if Section 335BNS had been incorporated now to which Raju responded in the affirmative. 

"There has been deception on the officer and a false record of birth certificate has been granted," Raju said. However the court orally remarked that the MP police had not stated anything in its couter affidavit regarding invocation of Section 335BNS. 

To this Raju said, "We are going to incorporate. Prima facie, 335 has been made out. Actual Date of Birth is different. It is December 2009. She is a child. It doesn't show birth of male child. Hospital record is not pertaining to her brother. Records show a girl child was born". 

Pointing to the marriage certificate dated March 11, Raju said that the wife's date of birth as 01.01.2008 was "wrongly given". 

He further said that the marriage of the couple performed as per Hindu ceremonies was not a valid Hindu marriage as the husband was not a Hindu. He said:

"This marriage has taken place in a Hindu temple. So it is presumed that it is according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Kindly have a look at the conditions of a valid Hindu marriage. It is not as per Islamic rites and ceremonies. Void marriage cannot be registered. Void, invalid marriage is registered, it is another offence. It is not a valid marriage which has taken place. It is not two Muslims. For valid Hindu marriage, it should be between two consenting Hindus". 

ASG Raju further argued that apart from this the second petitioner had not completed 18 years of age and hence the petitioners' marriage was invalid and void.

"Therefore, the Registrar of Marriage had been "deceived" to give a certificate of registration because he can only register valid marriages. ASG thus argued that there had been a forgery of the marriage certificate. 

However the court orally asked that the victim had no complaint in the case. To which Raju said that she is a minor, and only guardian can make a complaint. 

Raju thereafter said, "My Lord has said that you are considering only the transit bail and not the main bail application". To this the court responded in the affirmative. 

Meanwhile the petitioners' counsel referred to Supreme Court's Ashwini Kumar judgment, arguing that the apex court had said marriage can be registered irrespective of religion. 

ASG Raju however said that there was no valid marriage between the petitioners in the first place that could be registered. 

The court while reserving orders said that it would be pronounced tomorrow. 

On Friday, the Madhya Pradesh state authorities had informed the Court that offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been incorporated against Farmaan and hence the anticipatory bail moved by the couple was not maintainable.

On an earlier occasion also, the maintainability of the plea was challenged on other grounds, including insufficiency of pleadings to support why the Kerala High Court was approached instead of the courts in Madhya Pradesh when the crime was registered in MP. The couple had then filed an interim application to amend the pleadings in the bail plea.

The young woman, who became popularly known as the "viral Kumbh Mela star", shot to nation-wide fame during the Maha Kumbh celebrations last year, after videos of her selling rudraksha garlands at the mela circulated widely on social media.

In March 2026, the girl, who was in Kerala for a film-shooting, sought the help of local police, alleging that her family was opposing her marriage to Farmaan. She later married Farmaan.

The controversy escalated later when the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) said that the girl was allegedly a minor, about 16 years old, at the time of the marriage, and that forged documents may have been used to facilitate the wedding. Following these findings, police in Madhya Pradesh registered a case against the husband under the POCSO Act.

Case No: B.A. No. 1644 of 2026

Case Title: Moh Farmaan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Counsel for the petitioners: M. Sasindran, Satheeshan Alakkadan and Mrinal Chand

Counsel for MP Police: ASG S.V. Raju