S.S.SARON,J - (1.) THE petitioner Chander Pal Singh seeks pre-arrest bail in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 207 dated 5.11.2006 for the offences under Sections 363, 366A, 341, 506 and 120-B IPC registered against him at Police Station City, Kotkapura.
(2.) THE FIR has been registered on the complaint of Raj Kumar. It is alleged that his daughter Shelly, who was studying in 10+2, had suddenly on 10.10.2006 at about 6.00 p.m. left the house. Despite search she could not be traced. On the following day i.e. 11.10.2006 at about 11.00 a.m. the complainant received a call on his mobile. The calling party informed the complainant that his daughter has been taken away by the petitioner on the pretext of marrying her. Thereafter, his daughter made a call at about 6.15 p.m. and told the complainant that she had been taken by the petitioner on the saying of his sister Gaytri Devi and the husband of Gaytri Devi, namely, Narinder Kumar. She has been confined under threat by them and also one Chameli Devi wife of Ram Phool Singh. On the basis of the above, the FIR has been registered for the afore-noticed offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the petitioner and Smt. Shelly had a liking for each other since they had been knowing each other for the last 2/3 years. Since Shelly was a minor the petitioner waited till she attained majority as the parents of Shelly were against the affair which the petitioner had with Shelly. It is further stated that the petitioner and Shelly has solemnized their marriage on 10.10.2006 and photographs (Annexure-P.1) in this regard have been placed on record. It is stated that Shelly is not a minor and she is a major and she left her parental home on her own without any allurement or enticement. She has married the petitioner with her independent will and without any pressure, threat or coercion of any kind. It is stated that the allegations in the FIR that Shelly was taken on the pretext of marrying her is wrong. She was taken so as to marry her as petitioner and Shelly liked each other. A reference has also been made to the affidavit dated 31.1.2007 (Annexure-P.2) deposed by Shelly in which she has inter alia stated that she has solemnized her marriage on 10.10.2006 with the petitioner and she had attained the age of majority. It is deposed by Shelly that she had a liking for the petitioner for the last 2/3 years. Therefore, she waited till she attained the age of majority and then the marriage was solemnized. It is stated that the marriage has been solemnized by her with her free will and wish and since the solemnization of marriage she is leading a happy married life.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State and complainant have submitted that the date of birth of Shelly is 9.6.1989 and, therefore, she was less than 18 years of age. As such, Shelly has not reached the age of majority and is in the illegal confinement of the petitioner. The solemnization of marriage, it is submitted, has been cooked by the petitioner so as to avoid the criminal proceedings against him.;