Surendra vs State of C.G.

V.K. Shrivastava, J.—Heard.

The accused/Applicant has preferred this bail application u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure He is accused in Crime No. 82/2006 registered at Police Station Pamgarh, Distt.-Janjgir-Champa (CG) for commission of offence punishable u/s 363, 366(a) & 368 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Factual matrix of the case in brief is that on 10.4.2006 Applicant Kidnapped the prosecutor, who is a minor girl, and kept her in his house. She was kidnapped with an intention to marry, without her consent.

Learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that prosecutrix is not a minor girl. Present appliczint and the prosecutrix have love affair long back, since three years. She herself came to the house of the Applicant and both were got married. Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by her parents.

Learned Counsel for the State opposed the bail application. However, he concedes that prosecutrix in her statement has stated that she come from Orissa and called the Applicant on phone; parents of the Applicant asked her to go to her parent''s house, but she did not agree to it and started living with the Applicant as his wife.

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that abiding with following other conditions, on furnishing apersonal bond by the Applicant in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court for his regular appearance before the concerned courts as and when so directed he be released on bail:

(1) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court.

(2) He shall not leave the State of Chhattisgarh without previous permission of the court.