Cr.MP(M) No. 100 of 2010 24.2.2010 Present: Mr. M. L. Brakta, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondent. The petitioner was arrested on 21.10.2009 in FIR No. 90 of 2009 registered on 12.10.2009 under Section 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Ani. He failed to get the bail from the Court of Sessions, as such, moved instant petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his enlargement on bail. Briefly stated, the facts are that the prosecutrix, aged about slightly less than 18 years, on 29th September, 2009 was found missing from Shanshar village fair. It is alleged that her whereabouts were not known till 12th of October, 2009. Thus, FIR was lodged on 12.10.2009 by her father. In fact the record reveals that both of them visited Ruma Devi, sister of the prosecutrix who was married in village Shilidhar and told her that they have solemnized the marriage and stayed there for about 4/5 days. Ruma Devi also informed her parents telephonically about this fact who in turn told them that both of them be sent to their village. Thereafter, the prosecutrix as well as the petitioner alongwith his brothers and some other villagers went to the house of the parents to persuade them to accept the prosecutrix as the wife of petitioner. During this period w.e.f. 29.9.2009 to 20.10.2009 when they returned to the house of petitioner, visited Tandi, Kumarsain. The police found it a case of consensual inter course but alleged abduction as her age was less than 18 years. To establish the age of the prosecutrix the police obtained the copy of the pariwar register in which her date of birth has been Cr.MP(M) No. 100 of 2010 recorded as 1.2.1992 the basis of which is not known and school leaving certificate in which the same date has been reflected but the admission form of the prosecutrix has not been obtained to know its source. The challan has been presented in the court and is fixed for consideration of charge on 9th of March, 2010 in the Court of Sessions. I have gone through the investigation file and have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Against the aforesaid background, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. As such, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur at Recong Peo and this bail shall be subject to the conditions that the petitioner:- (i) shall attend the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kullu on 9th of March, 2010 o which date the case has been fixed for consideration of charge and thereafter as and when called upon to do so. (ii) shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case to as to dissuade him fro disclosing such facts to the court or the Police officer. Needless to say that if the petitioner shall commit the breach of any of the conditions aforesaid, the liberty of the bail shall be cancelled. Any observation made hereinabove is strictly for the disposal of this bail petition and shall not affect the merits of the case in any way. Cr.MP(M) No. 100 of 2010 Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur at Recong Peo for his information and necessary action at his end. In case, the parties applied urgent copy, it be supplied to them forthwith as per rules. The application is disposed of. (Surinder Singh), J. 24th February, 2010 (vs)