Aadhaar vs school records: Age mismatch helps man get bail in child marriage case in Karnataka | Bengaluru News

Bengaluru: A discrepancy in age records, between Aadhaar card and school documents, proved decisive in the Karnataka high court granting bail to a 24-year-old man accused of marrying a minor.The accused, a tribal resident of Deosugur in Raichur taluk, had been in judicial custody since Aug 4, 2025, after authorities found him living with a 16-year-old girl. A local panchayat development officer had alerted police, leading to the registration of a case at the Raichur women police station under stringent provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act.Seeking bail, the man pointed to conflicting documents on the girl’s age. While school records placed her date of birth as July 26, 2009, her Aadhaar card showed March 26, 2007, suggesting she was an adult at the time of marriage. He argued that he had relied bona fide on the Aadhaar card, and that this belief entitled him to legal protection.The court also noted that the girl’s mother, named as a co-accused in the case, had already been granted bail, strengthening the man’s plea for parity.Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, while granting bail, observed that child marriages continue to recur in Raichur district because of deep-rooted socio-economic backwardness and illiteracy, despite the presence of strict laws. Calling for a broader response, the judge directed the district legal services authority to conduct awareness programmes and workshops on the prevention of child marriage. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Sanjay Chandra case, the judge held that bail can be denied only when there is a clear risk of the accused absconding, tampering with evidence, or repeating the offence. With the investigation completed and the chargesheet filed, the court said continued incarceration amid a serious dispute over the victim’s age would violate the petitioner’s right to personal liberty under Article 21.However, the relief came with strict conditions. The victim’s mother has been directed to file an undertaking that the girl would live with her and not cohabit with the petitioner until she attains majority, as reflected in the chargesheet. The petitioner, in turn, must undertake that he will not claim any marital rights, nor attempt to influence or coerce the girl until her testimony is fully recorded.