Noorulla Khan vs State Of Karnataka

S.Vishwajith Shetty, J

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records are, complainant-victim girl had lodged a complaint on 06.03.2020 before the Police Inspector,

Basavanagudi Women Police Station, Bengaluru, alleging that she was the resident of Ramanagara and after her parents had expired, she was

residing with her maternal aunt at Bengaluru. When she was studying in fifth standard, the younger sister of her maternal aunt viz., Reshma and her

grandmother took her along with them to their house and eversince then, she was residing in their house. About five to six months prior to the date of

the complaint, Reshma allegedly got married the complainant to the petitioner against her wish. It is contended in the complaint that the complainant

was a minor at the time of marriage and inspite of her resistance, the accused-husband had forcible sexual intercourse with her. On 02.03.2020, she

had informed her aunt - Reshma and her husband - Zakeer that she does not want to go to her husband's house. However, they have forced her to go

to his house. Since she did not want to go to her husband's house, complainant went to her maternal aunt - Radilshad's house. Complainant has stated

in the complaint that she is pregnant for two months and in view of the ill-treatment meted out to her, the present complaint is lodged on 06.03.2020,

based on which, FIR in Crime No.23/2020 has been registered by the respondent-Police as against the petitioner/accused no.1 and others under

Sections 376(I), 504, 323 IPC read with Sections 5, 6, 11, 12 of POCSO Act, and Sections 9, 10 & 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

Petitioner's bail application filed before the LIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, in Crl.Misc.No.7682/2020 has been dismissed by

the said court on 16.01.2021.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody eversince 06.03.2020 and the investigation of the case is completed and

charge sheet has been already filed. He submits that as per Aadhaar Card entry, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 22. 5.2020 and the said

Aadhaar Card has been issued on 06.05.2013 i.e., much prior to the date of marriage. He submits that the marriage had taken place on 15.12.2019

and at the time of marriage, complainant's family members had confirmed the age of the complainant based on the Aadhaar Card. He submits that the

petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he had married the complainant with the consent of her elders, and therefore, prays to enlarge the petitioner

on bail.

Learned HCGP opposes the petition contending that as per the charge sheet, the age of the girl is only 15 years, and therefore, even if the petitioner

has married her, the act of he having sexual intercourse with her would amount to an offence. He submits that in the event of the petitioner being

released on bail, there is likelihood of tampering with the prosecution witnesses, and therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP and also perused the materials available on record.

It is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner and the complainant had taken place on 15.12.2019 and the elders of both the parties had

participated in the said marriage. After the marriage, for a period of more than three months, complainant has resided with the petitioner in his house.

Subsequently, she has gone to her maternal aunt's house and has lodged the present complaint. The Aadhaar Card extract which has been produced

by the petitioner would go to show that the date of birth of the complaint is 22.05.2000 and the said Aadhaar Card was issued on 6.05.2013 which is

much prior to the date of marriage. Therefore, a serious doubt arises as to the genuineness and correctness of the age of the complainant. Petitioner is

an youngster and he is in custody eversince 06.03.2020. It is not in dispute that he is not involved in any other criminal cases. Under the

circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner's case for grant of regular bail can be considered favourably. The apprehension of the

learned HCGP can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions on the petitioner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

Petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail in Crime No.23/2020 registered by Basavanagudi Women Police Station,

Bengaluru, under Sections 376(I), 504, 323 IPC read with Sections 5, 6, 11, 12 of POCSO Act, and Sections 9, 10 & 11 of Prohibition of Child

Marriage Act, 2006, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly;

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all future dates of hearing unless his appearance is exempted by the Trial Court for valid

reasons;

(iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without the prior permission of the said Court.