2022 Supreme(Kar) 1215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Rajendra Badamikar, J.
Lakshmamma & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 8812 of 2022
Decided On : 11-10-2022
Abhinaya K., Adv., for the Petitioner; Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP, for the Respondents
Granting anticipatory bail based on the lack of material to substantiate the alleged offence and the nature of the alleged offences.
Headnote:
Child Marriage Restraint Act - Anticipatory Bail - The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act. The court found that there was no material to substantiate the contention that the accused had married a minor, and the investigation was not progressing. The court also noted that the alleged offences were not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and therefore, admitted the petitioners on bail by imposing certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act. The case was based on a private complaint alleging that the accused had married a minor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no material to substantiate the contention that the accused had married a minor, and the investigation was not progressing. The court also noted that the alleged offences were not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and therefore, admitted the petitioners on bail by imposing certain conditions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged marriage of the accused with a minor and the progress of the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to grant anticipatory bail based on the lack of material to substantiate the alleged marriage of the accused with a minor, the lack of progress in the investigation, and the nature of the alleged offences.
Final Decision: The petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 7 were directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in the case, subject to certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
Rajendra Badamikar, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the event of arrest of the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 7 in Crime No. 64/2018 of Badavanahalli Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Madhugiri, Tumkur District.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The case was registered on the basis of the private complaint lodged by one Kumar against the petitioners, wherein it is alleged that the accused No. 1 is a relative of the complainant. On 20.11.2016 he had married with one Nagarathnamma who was aged about 17 years and the said marriage was solemnized in Lakshminarasimhaswamy temple at the instigation of other accused and petitioner No. 1 is leading marital life with his minor wife. On the basis of the private complaint the investigation was undertaken.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 7 would contend that the petitioners are innocent and due to personal vengeance, they are falsely implicated in this case. He would also contend that they also undertake to abide by all the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court and prays for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP has seriously objected the anticipatory bail petition and seeks for rejection of the bail petition.
6. However, during the pendency of the investigation, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the proceedings in Crl.P. No. 7324/2018. The said petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2022. Inspite of dismissal of the said petition, now it is submitted that there is no progress in the investigation. Annexure-G is the copy of the objection statement filed by the prosecution to the bail petition before the learned Sessions judge, wherein it is specifically asserted that the management of Jakkenahalli village Lakshminarasimhaswamy temple have denied the performance of any such marriage between the accused No. 1 and Nagarathnamma. Considering these aspects, it is evident that at this juncture there is absolutely no material to substantiate the contention that the accused No. 1 had married with Nagarathnamma. The investigating officer has not even bothered to ascertain the date of birth of Nagarathnamma. It is also submitted now that the accused No. 1 is already died and death extract is also produced at Annexure-E. No material is forthcoming to show that the present petitioners have instigated or performed the marriage as alleged in the private complaint by the complainant in Lakshminarasimhaswamy temple.
7. Further the learned Sessions judge has rejected the anticipatory bail petition only on the ground that the stay is operating for investigation. But interestingly, the petition was disposed of by the learned Sessions judge on 24.08.2022 itself, while the petition for quashing the proceedings was dismissed on 27.07.2022 itself about one month earlier. Apart from that in the objection statement also the prosecution has taken a defence regarding stay only though the matter was dismissed. All these facts and circumstances, clearly establish that there is no attempt to investigate the matter and in a mechanical way the matter was kept pending without making any efforts to proceed with the further investigation. Apart from that the offences alleged are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
8. Under these circumstances, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioners on bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed. The petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 7 are directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime