Criminal Misc.-M No. 34222 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 34222 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.12.2011 Ankit .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anmol Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. While issuing notice of motion on 25.11.2011, the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 5.9.2011 the petitioner had solemnized marriage with Renu Bala daughter of Mehar Singh against wishes of her parents. Her date of birth is 5.7.1993. She was more than 18 years of age, when the marriage was solemnized. She is still living with the petitioner.” It was directed that Renu Bala, who was allegedly kidnapped by the petitioner, will appear before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala on 29.11.2011 and get her statement recorded. Today, statement of Renu Bala recorded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala has been received in a sealed cover. The same was opened and perused. It states that Renu Bala had solemnised marriage with Ankit on 5.9.2011 at Mumbai without any pressure. Her parents are not happy with this marriage. As per school certificate, she was major. A copy of the same be retained in the file and the original be sent to the court Criminal Misc.-M No. 34222 of 2011 [2] below in sealed cover. Learned counsel for the State submitted that as per entries in the office of Registrar of Births and Deaths, the date of birth of Renu Bala is 16.10.1995 and not 5.7.1993, as shown in the school record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in her statement got recorded by the mother of Renu Bala, namely, Gurmeet Kaur on 1.9.2011, she had stated that Renu Bala is about 18 years of age. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the statement of Renu Bala recorded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, in terms of the directions issued by this court and also that presently she is happily residing with the petitioner after both had solemnised marriage, in my opinion, the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 13.12.2011 at 10.00 AM for joining investigation. In case of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for further investigation. He shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 2.12.2011 mk