{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4316 OF 2009 Prashant s/o Arun Kamble Ag3-20 years, Occ-Education R/o Kharda, Tq-Jamkhed Dist-Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for applicant Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, APP for the State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 14th December 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.110/2009 with Jamkhed police station for an offence punishable u/s 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of the learned APP. Also perused the papers of investigation. 3. It appears that the FIR came to be registered on {2} 21.08.2009 on the complaint of one Bhanudas Shinde, father of the prosecutorix, Jyoti. It is alleged in the complaint that Jyoti had left the house, in the morning of 17th August 2009, for attending the school, however at that time she had also carried her wearing apparels with her. It also appears that on 18.08.2009, the parents of the prosecutorix searched for her and when not succeeded, filed a compliant of missing on 19.08.2009. It further appears that on 20.08.2009, the prosecutorix, along with applicant, were brought at Jamkhed, by mother and brother of the applicant and then the present compliant came to be lodged and the applicant came to be arrested on 21st itself. 4. My attention is drawn towards the date of birth of the prosecutorix i.e. 03.06.1993. The alleged incident took place on 17.08.2009. It appears that on the date of the incident, age of the prosecutorix is just above 16 years. My attention is also drawn towards the statement recorded during investigation as well as the medical report and the contents of the compliant that the prosecutorix had left her residence, along with her clothes. A bunch of letters, written by prosecutorix, Jyoti to applicant is also produced along with the application. It is urged that considering the contents of the letters written by the prosecutorix to the applicant, it is clear that she is a consenting party to leave the house along with the applicant and she is also mad behind the applicant. In the premise, it is urged that the applicant is not responsible for the said offence and hence he be released on bail. {3} 5. While opposing the application, learned APP contended that the prosecutorix was minor on the date of the incident and this fact has to be taken into considering while passing any order in the application. 6. Considering the bonafide certificate, which discloses that the prosecutorix, Jyoti was born on 03.06.1993, it is clear that on the date of alleged incident, she was about 16 years old. In the premise, so far as offence of kidnapping is concerned, she is major. Apart from it, the material produced on record and also the facts which are narrated in the complaint that the prosecutorix had left the house along with her clothes, itself indicate that she was a consenting party. In the premise, in view of the fact that the applicant is arrested on 21.08.2009 and since then he is in jail and also considering the fact that the charge sheet is filed and hence there are no chances of tampering of any evidence, this is a fit case where the applicant deserves liberty. 7. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on his furnishing surety in the sums of Rs. 10,000/- and on executing PR Bond in the like amount. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln4316-09