(i)(n) of IPC, Section 5(L), 5(m), 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 9, 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.){kind=link}
The Karnataka High Court has observed that since there were no allegations of having subjected the minor girl to any sexual acts, it was appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the couple booked for marrying their adult son to a minor.
A single bench of Justice S.P. Sandesh heard a bail petition filed seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime of Gudibande Police Station, Chikkaballapura District, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC, Section 5(L), 5(m), 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the two petitioners, who are the in-laws of the victim girl, have performed the marriage of the girl who is aged about 11 years with their adult son (accused No.1) and the parents of the victim girl also have been arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 invoking the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
Counsel who appeared for the petitioners submitted that the School Head Master had lodged the complaint and no complaint was given by the parents of the victim. Only offences invoked against the petitioners are under Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and the same is not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life.
It is further submitted that in 164 statement also, the allegation is made that they performed the marriage of the victim girl who is a minor, who has categorically stated that husband has not committed any offence of sexual harassment. Hence, these petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, High Court Government Pleader for the State contended that the victim girl is aged about 11 years and her statement is very clear before the Magistrate under Section 164 that, these two petitioners were also participated in performing the marriage along with the parents of the victim and hence, there is a prima-facie material to invoke Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of allegations made in the complaint which is filed by the Head Master of the School and not by parents of the victim and the 164 statement of the victim the Court held that it is very clear that husband has not subjected her to any sexual act.Hence, only performing the marriage of the minor and though in the FIR Sections 9,10 and 11 are invoked, only Section 10 is invoked.
“Having considered the factual aspect of the matter and the peculiar circumstances of the case as the complaint is given by the HeadMaster and not by parents of the victim girl against these petitioners that they performed the marriage of the minor with the accused No.1. Since there is no allegations of subjecting the minor girl for sexual act, it is appropriate to exercise powers under Section 438 of CrPC,” the Bench observed while granting bail.