Kerala High Court Refuses To Extend Transit Anticipatory Bail Granted To Viral Kumb Mela Star's Husband In POCSO Case

Update: 2026-07-02 09:20 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 2) dismissed an application filed by Mohammed Farmaan, the husband of viral Kumb Mela star, seeking an extension of time in the 1-month transit anticipatory bail granted to him in a POCSO case registered at Madhya Pradesh.A detailed order is awaited.The application was filed following the rejection of Farmaan's bail plea by the jurisdictional POCSO...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 2) dismissed an application filed by Mohammed Farmaan, the husband of viral Kumb Mela star, seeking an extension of time in the 1-month transit anticipatory bail granted to him in a POCSO case registered at Madhya Pradesh.

A detailed order is awaited.

The application was filed following the rejection of Farmaan's bail plea by the jurisdictional POCSO Court, Mandleshwar (MP) yesterday. Farmaan now sought protection to approach the Indore Bench of the MP High Court.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath found that the present application in the disposed transit bail plea was not maintainable as per the Supreme Court's decision in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka.

It observed:

"This Court...has granted the liberty to the applicant to approach the jurisdictional court and apply for anticipatory bail within a period of one month. A further direction was given and the applicant was protected from arrest in the expiry of the said period. It is submitted that thereafter, the applicant approached the jurisdictional court in Madhya Pradesh and filed an application for pre-arrest bail. It was dismissed on 01.07.2026. Now, Crl.M.A. No. 7/2026 has been filed to extend the said period of 1 month for a further period of 15 days to facilitate the applicant to approach the High Court of Madhya Pradesh as per Section 482 of the BNSS...The applicant has already exercised the liberty granted to him by this Court...The present application is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed."

"As per Priya Indoria, in order to facilitate you to approach the jurisdictional court and to seek anticipatory bail...Once you approach there, get an order favourably or against, this Court's jurisdiction is over...You have to approach the High Court there...I have exercised my jurisdiction maximum. I gave you one month's time...It is going against the spirit of Priya Indoria," Justice Kauser orally remarked.

The Court today heard arguments advanced by Senior Advocate Gopalakrishna Kurup appearing for Farmaan. It was submitted that there are no fetters on the power of the Court to grant him protection till he could file an appeal or a fresh bail plea before the MP High Court. He relied on the Apex Court decision in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka.

"Your Lordship may be aware of the peculiar circumstances of the case," Sr. Advocate Kurup added.

He also invited the Court's attention to the writ petition pending before the MP High Court seeking directions to restore the girl's birth certificate, which was allegedly forged to make her out as a minor and implicate Farmaan. 

In reply, Justice Kauser orally said, "I am not at all on the merits of the case...This power of transit bail is an extraordinary remedy...You have already made an application...I already granted you...I would have exercised definitely, if I had jurisdiction but I don't have jurisdiction. I can't exceed my limit.

Though the senior counsel pressed for an extension of at least 15 days, the Court declined to entertain the application.

Last month, the Court had granted one month's transit anticipatory bail to Farmaan so as to enable him to approach the courts having jurisdiction in Madhya Pradesh for pre-arrest bail.

The prosecution has alleged that Farmaan committed offences under the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, the POCSO Act as well as offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including abduction, forgery, etc. It is alleged that the second petitioner was a minor at the time of the marriage and that Farmaan obtained the marriage certificate through forgery.

The case registered on the basis of a complaint given by the girl's father in MP.

Case No: Crl.M.A. No. 7 of 2026 in B.A. No. 1644 of 2026

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

Counsel for the petitioners: Gopalakrishna Kurup (Sr.), M. Sasindran, Satheeshan Alakkadan and Mrinal Chand


Tags:    

Similar News