1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.182 of 2008. Date of decision: 11.3.2008. Gulabu Ram ………. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ..…. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) 1. This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.81 of 2007 dated 28.5.2007 registered at Police Station, Ghumarwin, Distt Bilaspur under Sections 363, 366, 120-B IPC. The notice was issued on 7.3.2008. The respondent has filed status report. Heard and perusal the record. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 28.5.2007, Ramesh Kumar submitted a written complaint to the effect that his daughter Sunita Devi alias Sonu, aged about 17 years is missing since 16.5.2007 night. He searched her in his relations but she was not traceable. On 22.5.2007 , he lodged her missing report at Police Station Ghumarwin. Thereafter she was again searched. He has now come to know that Surjeet Singh alias Banti Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 son of Gulabu Ram petitioner has kidnapped his daughter Sunita with the intention to marry her. On that basis FIR was registered. The accused Surjeet Singh and Sunita were searched. During investigation Section 120- B was also added. On 25.6.2007, Smt. Kaili Devi mother of Surjeet Singh was arrested but petitioner husband of Kaili Devi could not be arrested. On 6.7.2007, Kaili Devi has been released on bail by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. The accused Surjeet Singh and his father Gulabu were searched at various places but they were not traceable. Accused Surjeet Singh was declared proclaimed offender on 22.2.2008 by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ghumarwin. During investigation, it has come that Surjeet took Sunita to Kullu where Ranjeet elder son of the petitioner resides. Sunita has been kidnapped by Surjeet Singh in connivance with the petitioner and his wife Kaili Devi. The allegations against the petitioner in brief are that he knows the whereabouts of accused Surjeet Singh and Sunita but he is not disclosing their where abouts to the investigating agency. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is innocent. He has already joined the investigation and he will continue to join the investigation as directed. The police is falsely imputing that despite having knowledge of the accused Surjeet Singh and Sunita the petitioner is not giving correct information to the police. The petitioner is about 70 years of old and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence, his wife Kaili Devi has already been released on bail by the Court, he is ready to furnish necessary bail bonds, in accordance with the directions of this Court. The learned Addl. Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the ground that petitioner has taken active part for hiding accused Surjeet Singh and Sunita and he is not disclosing the true facts about the whereabouts of the accused Surjeet Singh and Sunita. The girl was kidnapped in connivance 3 with the petitioner and his wife. The allegations of connivance against the petitioner are vague. The petitioner is not the only person who is expected to know the whereabouts of accused Surjeet Singh and Sunita. It is not the case of the investigating agency that accused Surjeet and Sunita have been kept by the petitioner himself at some unknown place. The investigating agency has means to trace out the whereabouts of accused Surjeet Singh and Sunita. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the case for releasing the petitioner on bail has been made out under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The application is accordingly allowed. The petitioner in the event of his arrest is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.8 of 2007, registered at Police Station Ghumarwin, Distt Bilaspur 28.5.2007 under Sections 363, 366, 120-B IPC IPC on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. He shall not leave the territory of Himachal Pradesh without permission of the learned sessions Judge, Bilaspur. He shall join the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating officer. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the case. Copy dasti, on usual terms. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge March 11, 2008 (sks)