Kerala HC Grants Transit Anticipatory Bail to Inter-Faith Couple Facing Madhya Pradesh Kidnapping FIR
The Kerala High Court granted transit anticipatory bail to a Muslim man and his Hindu wife, shielding them from arrest under a Madhya Pradesh FIR alleging kidnapping, pending their approach to the jurisdictional court.
The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, on 3 June 2026, granted transit anticipatory bail to Moh Farmaan, a 26-year-old film actor from Uttar Pradesh, protecting him from arrest under Crime No.112/2026 registered by the Maheshwar Police Station, Khargone District, Madhya Pradesh. Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, sitting singly, disposed of Bail Application No.1644/2026 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), giving the applicant one month to approach the jurisdictional court in Madhya Pradesh for regular anticipatory bail. The order rests on the couple's documented fear of honour killing, prima facie evidence of the wife's majority, and the settled position in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka [(2024) 4 SCC 749] that a High Court outside the territorial jurisdiction may pass transit bail even where it cannot grant pre-arrest bail.
The Couple, the Marriage, and the FIR
Moh Farmaan (applicant No.1) and Monalisa (applicant No.2), both described as film actors, are natives of Madhya Pradesh. They were residing in Kottayam District, Kerala, at the time of the application. According to them, they fell in love, got married, and had their marriage registered under the Kerala Registration of Marriage (Common) Rules, 2008, on 11 March 2026, before the Local Registrar of Marriages (Common), Poovar Grama Panchayat.
Monalisa's father initially agreed to the marriage but later, under pressure from relatives, filed a complaint with the Madhya Pradesh police. Based on that complaint, the Maheshwar Police Station registered Crime No.112/2026 against Farmaan alone under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alleging that he had kidnapped Monalisa from Madhya Pradesh and brought her to Kerala.
The matter did not stop at the FIR. In a counter affidavit filed by the investigating officer in a connected criminal miscellaneous application (Crl.M.A.No.5/2026), the police stated that additional offences had been invoked against Farmaan: Sections 81, 83, and 87 of the BNS; Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006; and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. These provisions were not reflected in the FIR itself.
The Jurisdictional Question and the Transit Bail Route
Because the FIR was registered in Madhya Pradesh, the Kerala High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to grant regular anticipatory bail. The applicants instead invoked Section 482 of the BNSS, seeking transit anticipatory bail — a limited protective order that buys time for the accused to approach the court with proper jurisdiction.
Justice Edappagath relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka [(2024) 4 SCC 749], which held that while a High Court cannot grant pre-arrest bail in cases where crimes are registered outside its territorial jurisdiction, it is empowered to pass an order of transit bail. That ruling provided the direct legal basis for the Kerala High Court to act.
The applicants' case for transit bail rested on two planks. First, they submitted that travelling to Madhya Pradesh to engage counsel and move a bail application there was not possible without a protection order, given the threat to their lives. Second, they placed on record photographs of agitation and burning of their photographs, which the court treated as substantiating the apprehension of an inter-state arrest and a threat to life and personal liberty.
The Age Dispute and the Documents Before the Court
The central factual contest was whether Monalisa is a minor. The main allegation in the FIR is that she is a minor and was kidnapped. The applicants produced her birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death, Maheswar Nagara Panchayat, showing her date of birth as 1 January 2008, which would make her 18 years old at the time of the marriage in March 2026. They also produced her Election ID card and a State Bank of India passbook, both reflecting the same date of birth.
The Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI), Sri S.V. Raju, appearing for the respondents, contested this. He submitted that Monalisa is in fact a minor and that the birth certificate produced is a forged one. He pointed to a screenshot from the Madhya Pradesh government's birth and death registration website showing that the birth certificate (Annexure AI) had been cancelled. The court noted that the genuineness of the birth certificate is a matter to be investigated by the Madhya Pradesh police.
Despite this dispute, Justice Edappagath found that the documents produced — the birth certificate, the Election ID card, and the bank passbook — prima facie showed Monalisa to be a major. Monalisa herself asserted majority and swore an affidavit stating that she had contracted marriage with Farmaan. The marriage certificate issued by the Local Registrar of Marriages (Common), Poovar Grama Panchayat, dated 11 March 2026, was also on record.
The ASGI raised a further objection on the validity of the marriage: Farmaan is Muslim and Monalisa is Hindu, and a marriage solemnised in a temple, he argued, is not a valid marriage, which would also mean the Local Registrar had no authority to issue a marriage certificate. The court did not resolve this question. It recorded that Monalisa admits she voluntarily resides with Farmaan as husband and wife.
The Honour-Killing Apprehension
The applicants stated that if they travel to Madhya Pradesh, they would be subjected to honour killing by fundamentalists because they belong to different religions. They produced photographs showing agitation and the burning of their photographs. The court found that the documents produced along with the bail application substantiated that the apprehension of an inter-state arrest was well-founded, and that the grounds raised for transit bail were reasonable to avoid a minimum threat to life and personal liberty in the jurisdiction where the FIR is registered.
The ASGI's position, as recorded by the court, was that the crime was registered only against Farmaan and that Monalisa is a victim, not an accused. That submission was formally recorded in the order.
Satisfaction of the Transit Bail Standard
Justice Edappagath held that Farmaan had satisfied the court regarding his inability to seek anticipatory bail from the court with territorial jurisdiction immediately. The court did not go into the merits of the underlying offences or the validity of the marriage. The order is expressly limited: it protects Farmaan from arrest for one month, within which he must approach the jurisdictional court in Madhya Pradesh and seek anticipatory bail in accordance with law.
The court's reasoning turned on three findings: the prima facie documentary evidence of Monalisa's majority; the substantiated apprehension of a threat to life and personal liberty; and the applicant's demonstrated inability to approach the Madhya Pradesh court without a protective order. The additional offences invoked in the counter affidavit — including the SC/ST Atrocities Act provisions and the Child Marriage Act — were noted but did not alter the court's conclusion on the transit bail question.
Outcome
Bail Application No.1644/2026 was disposed of on 3 June 2026. The court granted transit anticipatory bail to applicant No.1, Moh Farmaan. He shall not be arrested for a period of one month from 3 June 2026. Within that period, he is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court in Madhya Pradesh and seek anticipatory bail in accordance with law. No relief was separately ordered in respect of applicant No.2, Monalisa, consistent with the ASGI's submission that she is a victim and not an accused in Crime No.112/2026.