The willingness of families to perform marriage and precedent of a similar case influenced the court's decision to grant bail.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner is before this Court under Sec. 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking enlargement on bail in respect of Crime No.188 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Ss. 363 and 376 of the IPC, Ss. 4, 5(L) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sec. 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, which is now pending in Special C.C.No.29 of 2022 and calling in question the order dtd. 23/2/2022, passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-III in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1252 of 2022 denying bail to him.

2. Heard Smt. M. Kusuma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri V.S.Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri B.N. Lokesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2

3. Brief facts are as follows:-

The mother of the victim - 2nd respondent registers a complaint initially on 24/10/2021 alleging that her daughter gone missing. On the missing complaint, a crime is registered in Crime No.188 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sec. 363 of the IPC. The petitioner was arrested and is in judicial custody since 25/10/2021. On the missing complaint, the police conducted investigation. After completion of investigation, the Police have filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under Ss. 363 and 376 of the IPC, Ss. 4, 5(L) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Office Act, 2012 and Sec. 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

4. It is the case of both the petitioner and the daughter of the complainant that they were in love for over a year which could be gathered from the chat on the mobile phone and that was known to both the families. Difference of opinion between the parents of the petitioner and the parents of the victim has led to registration of crime and the petitioner is even now ready and willing to marry the victim. In the process of they being in love, the victim/girl also became pregnant and it is the contention of the petitioner that they used to live together. It is the family of the victim girl, which registered a complaint that the victim was missing. It is the further contention of the petitioner that there is no specific allegation of any overt act committed by the petitioner. It is during the investigation, the Police found out about the relationship of the petitioner with the victim girl who were in love and then registered the afore-quoted offences against the petitioner. On the Police filing the charge sheet, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1252 of 2022 seeking enlargement on bail. This is rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every chance that he may abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court and hamper court proceedings as also threaten witnesses or destroy prosecution evidence. The offences alleged were heinous in nature as he has forcibly married a minor girl and committed sexual assault on her. On the said reasoning the learned Sessions Judge rejects the bail, which drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend that the family members of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are ready and willing to get the petitioner and the victim girl married the moment the petitioner comes out of the prison as admittedly, they are in love for over a year and it is the love that has led to subsequent events.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would not refute any submissions but would admit the relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl and also admit that the families of both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are willing to perform the marriage of the petitioner with the victim girl.

7. However, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that no consideration should be shown only on the