IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 925 of 2011. Date of decision: 22.11.2011. Anita Sharma …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. 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. 207/2011 dated 18.6.2011 registered at Police Station, Indora, under sections 376(1), 506, 120B, 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC & Sections 9, 10, 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 18 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. It has been stated in the application that prosecutrix willfully married with Ranjit Pathania. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The case has been got registered at the instance of Sai Dass, who has no concern with them. It has been stated that prosecutrix is the daughter of petitioner, in addition to, one Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… son who is younger to prosecutrix. There is no one in the family to look after the son. The husband of the petitioner had died a few years back. The petitioner is innocent and aged woman. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application of the petitioner wrongly. 3. It has been stated that there are in all six accused, out of them four have already been released on bail by different courts. Krishna Devi accused has been released on bail by this court on 28.10.2011. The further detention of the petitioner is not necessary. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that case has been registered at the instance of prosecutrix, who came to the police station alongwith his relation Sai Dass. The date of birth of the prosecutrix is 30.3.1992. It has been stated that on 9.9.2008, the prosecutrix was taken from school to her home by Ranjit Pathania on the pretext that her mother was ill, where her mother and mother of Ranjit Pathania were present. They took the prosecutrix to Indora and from there to Tehsil court and got her signatures on some papers and declared that her marriage with Ranjit had been performed. At that time, she was 16 years old. All of them gave her beatings and got her forcibly married under threats. She could not even report to the police. 5. It has been alleged that thereafter Ranjit Pathania had been beating her, he had performed sexual intercourse with her several times against her wish. She was tortured by Ranjit Pathania …3… and her mother. She went to Chandigarh. On these allegations, the case was registered. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner is in custody since long and her continuous detention is not necessary more particularly when investigation in the case is complete and challlan has been filed. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the ground that serious offence has been committed by the petitioner. It has, however, been stated that challan has been submitted in the court on 15.9.2011 and now next date in the court at Indora is fixed for 28.11.2011. It has also been stated that other accused except petitioner and Ranjit Pathania have been released on bail by the courts. 7. The occurrence took place on 9.9.2008, the FIR was registered on 18.6.2011. The petitioner was arrested on 19.6.2011. The challan has been filed in the court. The trial of the case will take some time. No purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in judicial custody for indefinite period. The petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. 8. In view of above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR 207/2011 dated 18.6.2011 registered at Police Station, Indora, under sections 376(1), 506, 120B, 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC & Sections 9, 10, 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 18 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- with one …4… surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Indora, with the conditions that petitioner shall not terrorise, overawe any prosecution witness or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 9. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. The application stands disposed of. Copy dasti. November 22, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.