K. Martin vs State

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The petitioner is accused of an offence punishable u/s 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''the IPC'', for brevity). The complainant is the maternal uncle of Salma who has alleged that the petitioner had enticed his minor niece and had taken her away. It however transpires that the complaint was lodged on 16.11.2011. The petitioner claims that he was unaware of the case, but the petitioner and Salma had joined in matrimony and are now have a child who is seven months old and that there is no substance in the allegation. It is stated that they belong to different communities and since they were sure that there would be opposition to their marriage, they had both decided to elope and get married and they are now living in harmony. The learned counsel would further submit that given the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, it is a fit case where the proceedings would have to be set at naught and would further submit that in view of the serious allegation made on the further footing that Salma was a minor at the time of the incident, the petitioner apprehends immediate arrest and that he would be remanded to judicial custody, in which event, it would not be possible for the petitioner to take any steps in furtherance of the law laid down by the Apex Court, given the circumstances of the present case.

Therefore, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is shown as absconding before the trial court and which is the reason why the trial court had rejected his prayer for anticipatory bail, it is appropriate if the petitioner should now appear before the trial court along with Salma and satisfy the court that they are living together as husband and wife. In which event, the substance of the allegations against the petitioner would get completely watered down and if Salma is also a major at this point of time, it is an appropriate case which would have to be dealt with in accordance with the law laid down in the case of Gian Singh.

Therefore, while disposing of this petition, the Trial Court is directed to address ''the case having due regard to the circumstances and even enlarge the petitioner on bail in the fitness of things. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.