1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the event of arrest of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 7 in Crime No.64/2018 of Badavanahalli Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Madhugiri, Tumkur District.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

3. The case was registered on the basis of the private complaint lodged by one Kumar against the petitioners, wherein it is alleged that the accused No.1 is a relative of the complainant. On 20.11.2016 he had married with one Nagarathnamma who was aged about 17 years and the said marriage was solemnized in Lakshminarasimhaswamy temple at the instigation of other accused and petitioner No.1 is leading marital life with his minor wife. On the basis of the private complaint the investigation was undertaken.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7 would contend that the petitioners are innocent and due to personal vengeance, they are falsely implicated in this case. He would also contend that they also undertake to abide by all the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court and prays for allowing the petition.

5. Per contra, the learned HCGP has seriously objected the anticipatory bail petition and seeks for rejection of the bail petition.

6. However, during the pendency of the investigation, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the proceedings in Crl.P.No.7324/2018. The said petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2022. Inspite of dismissal of the said petition, now it is submitted that there is no progress in the investigation. Annexure-G is the copy of the objection statement filed by the prosecution to the bail petition before the learned Sessions judge, wherein it is specifically asserted that the management of Jakkenahalli village Lakshminarasimhaswamy temple have denied the performance of any such marriage between the accused No.1 and Nagarathnamma. Considering these aspects, it is evident that at this juncture there is absolutely no material to substantiate the contention that the accused No.1 had married with Nagarathnamma. The investigating officer has not even bothered to ascertain the date of birth of Nagarathnamma. It is also submitted now that the accused No.1 is already died and death extract is also produced at Annexure-E. No material is forthcoming to show that the present petitioners have instigated or performed the marriage as alleged in the private complaint by the complainant in Lakshminarasimhaswamy temple.

7. Further the learned Sessions judge has rejected the anticipatory bail petition only on the ground that the stay is operating for investigation. But interestingly, the petition was disposed of by the learned Sessions judge on 24.08.2022 itself, while the petition for quashing the proceedings was dismissed on 27.07.2022 itself about one month earlier. Apart from that in the objection statement also the prosecution has taken a defence regarding stay only though the matter was dismissed. All these facts and circumstances, clearly establish that there is no attempt to investigate the matter and in a mechanical way the matter was kept pending without making any efforts to proceed with the further investigation. Apart from that the offences alleged are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

8. Under these circumstances, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioners on bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7 are directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.64/2018 of Badavanahalli Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Madhugiri, Tumkur District, on each of them executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and in the event of surrender, Investigating Officer shall release them on bail as directed.

(ii) They shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) They shall not indulge in any similar offences.

(iv) They shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for during course of investigation.

(v) They shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer/SHO between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. on every first Monday of the month till the final report is submitted.

(vi) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.