Abdul Awal vs State Of Assam

The Court proceedings have been conducted through remote video conferencing mode due to the prevailing situation in the State due to Covid-19

pandemic. Heard Mr. S. Alom, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of

Assam.

By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the petitioner viz. Abdul Awal has approached this Court seeking the

benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Kalgacia Police Station Case no. 332/2021, registered under Sections 9/10/11 of

the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 22.05.2021 with the allegation that on 20.05.2021, a marriage was solemnized in Dabondia village

where the bride was a minor. Having received the information, the informant who is an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Barbhita Police

Outpost under Kalgachia Police Station, had proceeded to the village and interrogated the family members of the bride and the bridegroom. In the

process, a birth certificate of the bride was seized. From the birth certificate so seized, it was revealed that the bride was a minor and the child

marriage was solemnized in presence of the Kazi and the guardians of the bride and the bridegroom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that the petitioner was not the Kazi who solemnized the marriage. According to him, the petitioner is a Muwazzem of Gunialguri Jame Masjid who

attended the ceremony on invitation and he was not aware that the bride was a minor.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the concerned case diary has been received. She has submitted, on the basis of the materials

available in the case diary, that the petitioner had attended the ceremony. The materials in the case diary do not reveal that he is a relative of either

the bride or the bridegroom. It is further submitted by her that pursuant to the interim order dated 02.06.2021, the petitioner has appeared before the

Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the case and his statement has been recorded by the I.O.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the FIR.

Upon due consideration of the nature and gravity of the allegations made in the FIR; the fact that the petitioner was neither a relative/guardian of

either the bride or the bridegroom and he had attended the ceremony on invitation; and that pursuant to the interim order dated 02.06.2021, the

petitioner has appeared before the I.O., thereby joined the investigation, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the

petitioner for the purpose of carrying out investigation is not necessary and his release on pre-arrest bail, at this stage of investigation, is not likely to

cause any prejudicial effect in the further investigation of the case.

Accordingly, the interim protection granted to the petitioner by order dated 02.06.2021 is hereby made absolute, subject to the conditions that :

[i] the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required by the Investigating Officer

(I.O.) of the case;

[ii] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

[iii] the petitioner shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the

police;

The bail application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.