Cr.M.P.(M) No. 416 of 2009, 29.5.2009 Present: Mr. G.S. Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, A.A.G. for the respondent. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for granting bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 80 of 2009 dated 22.5.2009 registered at Police Station, Karsog under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. G.S. Rathore has strenuously argued that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He then submitted that the girl-Meena Kumari is residing with him voluntarily. Mr. Rathore further submits that his client in case enlarged on bail will neither tamper with the record nor terrorize the witnesses and will join the investigation as and when required. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner is already married and has two children. The girl is 16 years 6 months of age as per school leaving certificate. The petitioner has abducted her on the pretext that he would marry her. According to him, the nature of crime is heinous. He then contended that the case is still under investigation and custody of the petitioner is required in this case. He has opposed the application. I have heard the parties and perused the status report carefully. It is borne out from the statements recorded by the prosecution that the petitioner is married person. He has two children of 16 and 13 years of age respectively. He has abducted the girl on the pretext that he will marry her. It is evident from the school leaving certificate that she is only sixteen years and six months old. The case is at the stage of investigation and in this case the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. The plea of Mr. Rathore that the girl had voluntarily started living with his client cannot be accepted. Consequently, the petitioner has not made out a case for his release on bail. Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected. The observations made in this order are for the disposal of this application and the same shall not be treated as an expression or opinion on the merits of the case. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 29, 2008. (cr)