IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 584 of 2011 Date of decision : 08.08.2011. ____________________________________________________________ Pawan 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. S.D.Gill, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application for releasing the applicant on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 322 of 2009 dated 29.11.2009 under Sections 363, 366 IPC registered at Police Station, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. The status report has been filed, record perused. 2. It has been stated by the applicant that he has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant has solemnized marriage with the daughter of the complainant Tara Chand and both of them are now living as husband and wife. Priti has left her house with free will. The applicant has neither kidnapped nor enticed Priti. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in view of the registration of the case. He is innocent, no recovery is to be made from ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 the applicant, who is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Hon’ble Court in case he is released on bail. 2. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General. She has submitted that the applicant has kidnapped and enticed the daughter of the complainant aged 16 years, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The prayer has been made for dismissing the bail application. 3. I have considered the arguments on either side. The applicant appeared in the Court and identified Priti who also appeared in the Court. Priti has stated that she is voluntarily living with the applicant. The applicant has placed on record the marriage certificate dated 26.6.2011 indicating that he has married with Priti on 26.6.2011 at Gasoteshwar Mahadev Temple, Gasota, District Hamirpur. 4. In the status report, it has been stated that Priti in her statement has stated that on 26.11.2009 she called the applicant on telephone whom she knew earlier. Thereafter, both of them went to Una and then to Noida and thereafter to Gurgaon. They lived there for seven months. The applicant is doing private service. They went to Gwalior where the applicant joined Mahindra and Mahindra Company. They have solemnized marriage on 26.6.2011 at Gasoteshwar Mahadev Temple, Gasota, Hamirpur. Priti declined to undergo medical examination. She also declined to go to her parents. It has been stated that for the last about 1 ¾ year the applicant took Priti from one place to another. In the status report date of birth of Priti has been shown 10.2.1993. 3 5. The complaint was lodged by Tara Chand father of the girl. On the date of occurrence on 29.11.2009 the girl was more than 16 years. The applicant has joined the investigation. There is nothing in the status report that the applicant is not co-operating in the investigation. In the status report nothing has been indicated that some recovery is to be made from the applicant. It has not been shown in the status report for what purpose the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. In these circumstances, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The applicant in the event of arrest in FIR No. 322/2009 registered on 29.11.2009 at Police Station, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, under Sections 363, 366 IPC is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the condition that the applicant shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 7. The observations made in this order are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. August 8, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.