The judgment establishes the gravity of offences related to child marriage and sexual offences, emphasizing the need to consider the age and consent of the victim. It also highlights the court's reliance on legal provisions and precedents to assess the applicants' culpability.

JUDGMENT

1. The applicants in both the Applications are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.92 of 2021 registered with Nijampur Police Station, Sakri, Taluka and District-Dhule for the offence punishable under Ss. 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n) read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act") and Ss. 9, 10, 11 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Bhadane for the applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application (for short "ABA") No.1608 of 2021 and learned Advocate Mr. Bhamre for the applicants in ABA No.1418 of 2021 and learned APP Mr. Virdhe for respondent No.1 - State in both the Applications. Since respondent No.2 did not engage Advocate immediately, learned Advocate Mr. P.P. Mandlik was appointed to represent the cause of respondent No.2, however, later on respondent No.2 has engaged Advocate Mr. R.M. Sharma, therefore submissions of both the learned Advocates are heard.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicants that they have been falsely implicated. Applicants in ABA No.1418 of 2021 are the relatives of the informant, however, with some ulterior motive now the informant has made allegations against them. There is delay of about one year in lodging the First Information Report (for short "FIR") and there is absolutely no explanation for the inordinate delay. The allegations about offence under Sec. 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code are against one Mansajan who has been already arrested and he is not the applicant in present applications. Victim is the daughter of the informant and then it is stated that said Mansajan had committed rape on her when victim was staying with her paternal aunt - Vandana who is applicant No.1 in ABA No.1418 of 2021 and thereafter when the victim became pregnant, all of them forced the victim as well as the informant that marriage of the victim should be performed with Mansajan. Applicants in ABA No.1608 of 2021 are the parents of said Mansajan. Nothing incriminating is required to be recovered from the applicants and therefore, their physical custody will not be necessary.

4. It has been tried to be submitted on behalf of the parents of Mansajan, who are applicants in ABA No.1608 of 2021, that in fact the informant herself had forced for the marriage between Mansajan and the victim. Now, male child had begotten to the victim. The victim had attained the age of puberty and maturity. The informant herself was present when the marriage took place. Therefore, she has also committed an offence, yet, now she has dared to lodge the report. It can be seen from the facts of the case that there was love affair between the victim and Mansajan and solemnization of the marriage is an admitted fact. When the marriage has been performed, Mansajan would be the husband of the victim and it cannot be said that he has committed rape on the victim. The offence under Child Marriage Restraint Act does not require custody.

5. Learned Advocate representing the applicants in ABA No.1418 of 2021 has submitted that the informant wants to shift her responsibility on the shoulders of the applicants. No role has been played by the present applicants in forcing the victim to perform marriage with Mansajan. The victim was residing with these applicants since the age of three years and they have taken good care of the victim like their own daughter. Therefore, custody of these applicants is also not required for the purpose of investigation.

6. Both the learned Advocates for the respective applicants submitted that the applicants are ready to abide by the terms of the bail and the learned Advocate for the applicants in ABA No.1418 of 2021 submitted that this Court had granted interim protection to those applicants on 3/12/2021. The applicants have not misused that liberty and have abided by the terms of the bail. That interim protection deserves to be confirmed.

7. Per c