JUDGMENT :

M.G. Sewlikar, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned A.P.P. and the learned advocate for the respondent no.2 waive service. With the consent of the parties both the matters are heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. Both these applications are being disposed of by common judgment as they arise out of the same crime.

3. Factual matrix involved in these two applications can be briefly stated as under.

4. The informant was working in Ericsson Company, Kolkata since 18.12.20212. She got acquainted with applicant in application no.3781/19 (hereinafter referred to as ‘A’). Applicant nos.1 and 2 in application no.2040/19 are the parents of ‘A’ and applicant no.3 in application no.2040/19 is the sister of ‘A’. (Applicant nos.1, 2 and 3 in application no.2040/19 are hereinafter referred to as father, mother and sister respectively).

5. It is further alleged in the FIR that the informant got acquainted with the ‘A’. ‘A’ used to visit her house on one or the other pretext. On 14.02.2013 ‘A’ proposed the informant. In the month of March-2013 the informant went to Delhi as ‘A’ had called her at Delhi and had purchased an air ticket for her. Both of them had gone to S