IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1027 of 2009 Decided on : 2.12.2009. Manoj Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P.Singh, Assistant, Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 93 of 2009 registered on 30.7.2009 at Police Station, Shahpur, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. Status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. On the statement of Smt. Vidya Devi, complainant the case was registered at Police Station, Shahpur. The complainant has alleged that she has two daughters and one son. One son and one daughter are married. The younger ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 daughter aged about 15 years is unmarried. The husband of the complainant had died about 15 years ago. Manoj used to visit her sister Lalita who is having her residence near the house of the complainant at Bhaled. The father of Manoj approached the complainant for the marriage of the prosecutrix with Manoj but the complainant declined on the ground that prosecutrix is below 18 years. Manoj had visited her sister’s house 15 – 18 days ago and since then prosecutrix was missing. The complainant informed her daughter Saroj and son Ranjit and also searched prosecutrix in relations but she could not be traced. She had received a telephonic call from Manoj, she had talk with the prosecutrix. The complainant told them to return to their home but they did not turn up. She suspected that Manoj Kumar had kidnapped minor daughter of the complainant. On this, case was registered. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecutrix and petitioner got married on 21.9.2009 and they were living as husband and wife. The petitioner and prosecutrix surrendered to the police after registration of the case and on 28.9.2009 police arrested the petitioner and since then petitioner is in custody. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application which has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 21.11.2009. 4. It has been submitted that the age of the prosecutrix relied by the investigating agency is wrong. The father of the prosecutrix had died on 4.3.1984. Therefore, date of birth of the prosecutrix of the year 1993 recorded in the Panchayat record is wrong. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. The investigation in the 3 case is complete. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application and has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to bail in view of material collected by the investigating agency. The prosecutrix was minor on the date of commission of offence and as per Panchayat record year of birth of the prosecutrix is 1993. The doctor in the MLC of the prosecutrix has given the age of the prosecutrix in between 17 to 19 years on the basis of radiological finding. 5. I have gone through the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. from the police file and that statement indicates that prosecutrix left her home on 8.7.2009 and reached Draman where petitioner met her and they went to Amritsar where they lived together in a quarter. After about one month, petitioner took her to Jasur and they lived there also. The radiological age of the prosecutrix is in between 17 to 19 years. It will not be in the interest of either party to elaborate more on the evidence which has been collected by the investigating agency. It has not been submitted on behalf of the State that some recovery is to be made from the petitioner. At this stage, on the basis of the material on record, I am of the opinion that petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail in FIR No. 93 of 2009 registered on 30.7.2009 at Police Station, Shahpur, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of 4 Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala with the condition that the petitioner shall not hamper the investigation or tamper the prosecution evidence in any manner. 6. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of this application only and the same shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. December 2, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.