This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1 under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime

No.206/2022 of K.R.Puram Police Station, Bengaluru City,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 10

of Child Marriage Restrain Act and Sections 4 and 6 of

Protections of Child from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (for short

3

8POCSO ACT9) pending on the file of the Additional City Civil

and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru.

2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case is that;

respondent No.2 herein being a Sub-Inspector of Police of

K.R.Puram Police Station has lodged a compliant against the

petitioner on the basis of information furnished by the Medical

Officer regarding the petitioner committing offence punishable

under Sections 9 and 10 of Child Marriage Restrain Act and

Sections 4 and 6 of Protections of Child from Sexual Offence

Act 2012. On the basis of the complaint, the crime came to be

registered and later on, the petitioner was arrested and

remanded to the judicial custody. The petitioner has moved a

regular bail petition before the learned Session9s Judge and

the same came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before

this Court.

4

3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.1 and learned counsel

appearing for the respondent 3 State. Perused the records.

4. The allegation discloses that on 16.06.2022, the

victim, who is the wife of the petitioner, approached the

Primary Health Centre in Ramamurthy Nagar for medical

checkup and on examination, it is found that she was

pregnant. Further, it is also revealed that her date of birth is

27.07.2004 and she was aged about only 17 years. The

petitioner being her husband, it is alleged that the marriage of

the victim was solemnized when she was minor and after

marriage, she has become pregnant in view of physical

relationship between the petitioner and the complainant.

Hence, the complaint came to be lodged.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at this

juncture, contends that under Mohammedan Law, the puberty

is the consideration for marriage and normal puberty age is

5

treated as 15 years and hence, he would contend that there is

no commission of offence under Sections 9 and 10 of the Child

Marriage Restrain Act. However, such arguments cannot be

accepted in view of the fact that POCSO Act is a Special Act

and it over rights personal law and under POCSO Act, the age

for involving in sexual activities is 18 years.

6. However, at the same time, it is also evident that

victim is aged about 17 years and is capable of understanding

things. Though she asserts that without her consent, marriage

was solemnized, there is no evidence to show that she has

raised any objections and the prima-facie, it is evident that

she is also consenting party though she is under the influence

of her parents.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner is the husband of the victim

and looking to these facts and circumstances, there is no

serious dispute regarding the marriage as the petitioner

himself has produced the relevant documents before the Trial

6

Court regarding the marriage. Hence, looking to these facts

and circumstances, there is no question of tampering the

prosecution

witnesses.

Considering

the

relationship

of

marriage, in my considered opinion, there is no impediment

for admitting the petitioner on bail. Further victim being

pregnant, requires proper support and petitioner can take care

of his wife. The apprehension raised by the learned HCGP can

be meted-out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the bail

petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to

pass the following:-

ORDER

The petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused

No.1 is directed to be enlarged on bail in respect of

Crime No.206/2022 of K.R.Puram Police Station,

registered for the offence punishable under Sections 9

and 10 of Child Marriage Restrain Act and Sections 4

and 6 of Protections of Child from Sexual Offence Act

2012 on