MP Police Questions Maintainability Of Anticipatory Bail Plea Moved By Viral Kumbh Mela Star, Husband Before Kerala High Court

The Madhya Pradesh government on Wednesday (May 20) challenged before the Kerala High Court the maintainability of the anticipatory bail plea moved by Viral Kumbh Mela star Monalisa Bhosle and her husband Farmaan in the crime lodged after Bhosle's father filed a complaint before MP police alleging abduction of his daughter.

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the MP Director General of Police, submitted before Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath that the present petition, being a regular anticipatory bail plea, is not maintainable before the Kerala High Court since the FIR was registered in Madhya Pradesh. He relied on the Apex Court decision in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka.

The ASG submitted: "They can only apply for transit anticipatory bail, not regular anticipatory bail. He has to satisfy two things. One, why he has come before this Court and why he can't go to the MP court. He must make out a case in the petition. Not a whisper in the entire plea why he can't go to Madhya Pradesh. On the contrary, he has gone to Madhya Pradesh and filed a writ petition."

The ASG was referring to a plea preferred by the couple before the Madhya Pradesh High Court alleging that her birth certificate was forged to criminalise their interfaith marriage. As per the petition before MP High Court, the petitioner has sought directions to restore her birth certificate and to conduct an independent investigation into forgery of government records.

The ASG further submitted that only a transit anticipatory bail application would be maintainable in Kerala and that too, if the petitioners satisfy reasons for approaching this Court and for not approaching the Madhya Pradesh courts.

The Court then orally suggested that an order can be passed protecting the petitioners from arrest till they approach the courts in Madhya Pradesh: "I'll allow him to go to Madhya Pradesh and file anticipatory bail...They are entitled to the same." 

However, the ASG disagreed and reiterated that the present petition itself cannot be entertained since no pleadings were made to substantiate why this Court is approached instead of the Madhya Pradesh courts.

The petitioners' counsel Advocate M. Sasindran said that they cannot be kept in the dark by not producing the FIR copies. He also submitted that he would substantiate as to why this Court was approached.

Referring to the relevant paragraph in Priya Indoria's case, he said: "Para 97 is only with reference to forum shopping...I can also substantiate."

The Court orally told the petitioners' counsel that he can substantiate the reasons for not approaching MP courts and said:

"It is maintainability which is an issue. You relied on a 2010 division bench judgment of this Court. Now Priya Indoria has come...states that ordinarily, the anticipatory bail application will lie only in the Court of the State where the FIR is registered. In no circumstances, it will lie in a state or place where arrest is apprehended. But, on satisfaction of certain conditions, like why he could not approach the jurisdictional Court; two, what is the compelling reason he is coming here, etc. On satisfaction of these conditions. The Court can grant limited anticipatory bail, i.e., transit anticipatory bail to enable him to go there and approach...But you can substantiate."

While hearing the ASG's arguments referring to the averments in the bail application, the Court orally remarked that it will not hear the matter on merits unless the FIR is produced. At this juncture, the ASG sought time to produce the relevant documents.

The Court had earlier passed an interim order staying their arrest on March 23, after noting that the couple got married on March 11 and had been residing as husband and wife. Later, on April 8, the interim stay was extended till today.

The case was then posted to May 29 for further consideration. The Court extended the order granting the couple interim protection from arrest till the adjourned date.

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