The subject case in this Bail Application is Crime

No.96/2018 of Changaramkulam Police Station, Malappuram,

which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.9 &

11(1) of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Secs.5(j)(ii) &

6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012,

and Secs.197 & 198 of the IPC. Originally only two persons have

been arrayed as accused. A1 is the mother of the lady victim and

A2 is the husband of the lady victim.

2.

The allegations raised in the above FIS given by the

lady victim now aged 22 years is to the effect that, A1 (lady

victim's mother) had compelled and forced the lady victim to

marry A2 at the time when the victim had not completed the

majority age of 18 years, etc.

3.

Now it is submitted by both sides that A1 & A2 have

already been granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions

Court notified to deal with POCSO Cases, Manjeri, as per Anx.1

B.A. No. 8186 /2019

..3..

order dated 20.6.2018. It appears that later, the police after

investigation has additionally included the petitioner herein as A3

and another person as A4, who is said to have issued the certificate

relating to the marriage of the victim. The new allegations raised as

against the petitioner herein (A3) is that, the petitioner as the

father of the lady victim had also compelled her and conducted her

Nikah with A2, etc. The petitioner herein (A3) has been arrested in

this case on 17.10.2019 and after his remand has been under

detention since then.

4.

After hearing both sides it is seen that in the original

FIS no allegations has been made by the lady victim against the

petitioner herein (A3) who is her father and the entire gravamen of

allegations are directed against A1 (lady victim's mother) and A2

(lady victim's husband). A1 & A2 have been granted anticipatory

bail by the Sessions Court as per Anx.1 order as early as on

20.6.2018.

5.

The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the

petitioner herein (A3) has been separated from A1 (lady victim's

mother) quite some time ago, and long before the alleged marriage

of victim with A2. Further that, the victim is said to have been

B.A. No. 8186 /2019

..4..

married before she had completed the age of 18 years, and a child

has been born to her in the wedlock with A2 and later it appears

that she has matrimonial disputes with A2 and it is after the lapse

of 5 years from the alleged marriage that the victim has chosen to

make this complaint and immediately after the completion of

majority age of 18 years she has not taken any steps to annul her

voidable marriage, etc. It is further pointed out that at the relevant

time of conduct of Nikah and marriage, the lady victim was with

the mother (A1) and not with the petitioner (A3).

6.

After hearing both sides, this Court is not in a position

to understand as to why the police has not issued the Sec.41A

Cr.P.C. Notice to the petitioner so that he could have moved for

anticipatory bail. Further this Court is not in a position to

understand as to why the Sessions Court has rejected the plea of

the petitioner for regular bail as per the impugned Anx.2 order

dated 4.11.2019, when the Sessions Court had earlier granted bail

to the prime accused persons (A1 & A2).

7.

After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of

the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to

take the view that the petitioner has made out a strong probable

B.A. No. 8186 /2019

..5..

case that his continued incarceration is not necessary and he could

be released on regular bail subject to conditions. Accordingly it is

ordered in the interest of justice that, the petitioner shall be

released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.40,000/- and on his

furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, both to the

satisfaction of the competent court below concerned. However, the

grant of bail will be subject to the following conditions:-

i.

The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of sim