{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4515 OF 2009 Ishwar s/o Pradeep Sarage Age-25 years, Occ-Labour R/o Chakur, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.N.P.Patil (Jamalpurkar), Advocate for applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.199/2009 registered with Latur Gramin Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 363, 366 (A) read with 34 of the IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the arguments of learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. {2} 3. It appears that the alleged offence came to be registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Ashok Khandagale on 27th September 2009. It is alleged that in the early morning of 27th September, 2009, his daughter, by name Jyoti, was kidnapped by the applicant with the help of two others, while she left the house for attending her college. It further appears that after two months of lodging of the FIR, the prosecutorix Jyoti and applicant were taken into custody by the police and offence u/s 376 came to be added, on the statement of the prosecutorix. 4. It is urged that though the compliant of abduction was lodged on 27th September, yet the applicant came to be arrested on 27th November 2009 and since then he is in jail. According to learned counsel for the applicant, as the parents of the prosecutorix were opposing marriage of the applicant with her, the applicant is implicated in this false offence. 5. By pointing out the papers of investigation, where statements of the neighbours are recorded, learned APP opposed the bail application. 6. After perusing the papers of investigation, it is clear that the date of birth of prosecutorix Jyoti is 24th September 1992, and her statement discloses that she was well acquainted with the applicant for years together before the alleged incident. On bare {3} perusal of her statement, it is clear that she, at her own, had left her house along with the applicant and stayed for about 2 months with him till she was taken in custody along with the applicant. During the said period, no compliant was ever made by her. In the premise, it cannot be said that this is a case of abduction. However, this appears to be a case of an affair. Though the application is opposed by learned APP on the ground that other co- accused are still absconding, yet considering the statement of prosecutorix Jyoti, there are no chances of tampering of any evidence. In the premise, case is made out to release the applicant on bail. 7. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. The applicant not to leave the local jurisdiction of the concerned police station till filing of the charge sheet, without previous permission in writing from the IO concerned. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln4515-09