Crl. Misc. No.M-17910 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-17910 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.08.2009 Sohan Lal ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. B. S. Kathuria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. S. Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. *** RAJESH BINDAL J. (ORAL) The petitioner is an accused in FIR No.75 dated 14.6.2008 registered under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC at Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. The allegation against the petitioner is that he abducted Anubala, daughter of the complainant on 31.05.2008. Both were apprehended on 18.06.2008. During that period, the daughter of the complainant remained with the petitioner at Srinagar, where she was raped. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 31.05.2008, Anubala had gone with the petitioner with her consent. They had solemnized marriage on 04.06.2008. They lived for about two weeks at Srinagar. During that period, Anubala even filed a suit for permanent injunction against her father in the Court of Sub-Judge Patran (J&K) with the prayer that her father be permanently restrained not to take her from the Crl. Misc. No.M-17910 of 2009 (O&M) -2- custody of her husband. Agreement of marriage was also signed between the parties which was duly attested by notary at Bara Mullah. In the suit, Anubala had herself appeared in the Court. Even in her examination in the Court she had admitted that when they were in Srinagar, police party used to frequently visit the area where they were living. She even made telephone calls to her father meaning thereby that she was not kidnapped and was not kept in confinement. They were apprehended when they came back to village Naushra Pattan. The petitioner is in custody since 18.6.2008. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. The prosecutrix, Anubala has supported the version given in the FIR. Considering the fact that till date material evidence is against the petitioner he should not be released on bail as the trial is still at the initial stage. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is in custody for the last more than 1 year and 2 months. Considering the aforesaid facts and without opining on the merits of the controversy least the same affects the case of either of the parties and the fact that trial is going to take some time, in my opinion, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail pending trial. Accordingly the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. ( RAJESH BINDAL ) August 25, 2009 JUDGE ashish