Kuldip Singh, Judge

1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 129/2012 dated 22.05.2012, registered at Police Station, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC. It has been stated that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case on extraneous grounds and was arrested on 10.8.2012. He is in custody since then. The petitioner is a young boy and belongs to poor family. He is only bread earner of the family. There is nobody to look after the old widow mother. The investigation in the case is complete. The further detention of the petitioner will not serve any purpose. It has been stated that no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner is not connected with the commission of offence. The allegations against the petitioner are fabricated. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. The petitioner earlier filed bail application which has been dismissed on 21.08.2012 by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi.

2. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that case has been registered on the basis of complaint dated 22.05.2012 of Anil Kumar. The complainant has stated that his daughter was missing since 16.05.2012 at about 11.00 p.m. The complainant further stated that his daughter was less then 16 years. The police was informed but she could not be traced. Radha a friend of victim disclosed that victim had mobile but complainant had not provided any mobile to the victim.

3. It has been stated that one Usha a co-villager received telephone call from Vicky. He told to contact one particular phone number. Thereafter, calls from several phones mentioned in the status report were received. The complainant requested for investigation of the case. The case was registered.

4. It was found that Lakhwinder Pal alias Lucky Village Naya Katda, Mohalla Kalanour, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, kidnapped the victim on the promise of marriage. The date of birth of victim is 1.7.1996. The Investigating Officer went to Kalanour to trace out victim and other accused, however, Bishan Dass and Mohan Lal obstructed him from discharging his official duty. On this, Sections 120B, 186 IPC were added. Lakhwinder Pal and victim were recovered on 3.8.2012 from Kalanour, both were got medically examined. On the statement of victim and her MLC, Section 376 IPC was added.

5. The victim in her statement has stated that her aunt Subh Lata introduced her to Lakhwinder Pal. On 16.5.2012 at 10.00 p.m., the mother of the victim had gone to her parents house. Subh Lata took victim from her house and accompanied her up to main road Palasi where petitioner on his motorcycle took victim up to Hamirpur and boarded victim in the Pathankot bus and told her that Lucky would meet her at Pathankot.

6. Subh Lata and petitioner were made accused under Section 120B IPC and were arrested. The petitioner told that he used bike No. HP-28-3803 of his friend Pawan Kumar which has been taken into possession. Mohan Lal and Bishan Dass are yet to be arrested. The report from SFSL is awaited. Subh Lata has been released on bail on 13.9.2012 by the High Court. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail application.

7. Heard and perused the record. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 16.5.2012 at about 10 p.m. he took victim from Palasi to Hamirpur and boarded the victim in Pathankot bus and told her that at Pathankot Lakhwinder would meet her. The bike on which petitioner took victim from Palasi to Hamirpur has been recovered. The victim remained with Lakhwinder from 16.5.2012 to 3.8.2012 when she was recovered from Kalanour. The date of birth of the victim is 1.7.1996, thus on 16.5.2012 she was minor. The petitioner has been connected with the commission of the offence. Subh Lata has been released on bail as she was having girl child aged about one year who was breast fed. In addition being a woman she was given benefit for releasing on bail. The case of the petitioner is separate. The two accused have not yet been arrested. The investigation in the case is in progress. In these circumstances, at this stage the petitioner is not entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Hence, bail petition is dismissed. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of bail application and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.