Point of Law: Pretrial incarceration for indeterminate period will not be in interest of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 34 of 2021, dated 5.3.2021, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, H.P. under Sections 363, 366-A, 370-A, 506 and 120-B of IPC. He was arrested on 6.4.2021 and since then, he is in custody.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of victim on 5.3.2021 reported to the police that his minor daughter aged about fifteen years (victim) had not returned home from the school and on inquiry, he had found that the students were not even required to attend the school on the said date. Police registered a case under Section 363 IPC. During investigation, the location of mobile phone used by the victim was found somewhere in Haryana. It was found that victim was travelling towards Delhi. A police party reached Delhi. On further analysis of the call detail records of the mobile phone, which was in contact with mobile number of the victim, one person named Jatin Malik was tracked. On interrogation of the Jatin Malik, it was found that the victim had taken a lift in his vehicle on the night of 5.3.2021 from a place near Panipat. The victim while travelling in the vehicle of Jatin Malik had contacted a person named Mohammad Zubair from the mobile phone of Jatin Malik. The caller from the other side had sent a location on the mobile number of Jatin Malik with direction to leave the victim at such location. Finally, Jatin Malik had dropped the victim at about 10.30 p.m. at NTPC Chowk, Badarpur, Delhi, where a boy had received her.

3. During further investigation, it was found that the boy, who had received the victim, was named Ibrahim and he had further dropped the victim with a female named Nasrin at Village Dhakiya in Uttar Pradesh. Lastly, the victim was recovered on 8.3.2021 and was handed over to her father.

4. The investigation was completed and challan was filed in the Court. Prosecution has come up with allegations that the victim had left her home at the instance of Petitioner and Mohammad Zubair. It is alleged that the petitioner, Mohammad Zubair, Ibrahim and other co-accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy and thereby had enticed the victim to leave her home. They had intended to send the victim abroad with ulterior motive. It is further alleged against the petitioner and Mohammad Zubair that they were telephonically contacting the victim and had made all arrangements for her travel to Delhi and further beyond the country.

5. Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail on the ground that he has been falsely implicated. Specific contention of the petitioner is that he was working in Kerala at the relevant time. Merely on the basis of his telephonic conversations with Mohammad Zubair and Ibrahim, his implication is hypothetical. After completion of investigation, no legal evidence has been found against the petitioner. He is in custody for the last about two years. The material witnesses in the case have already been examined. He has also sought the bail on the ground of parity as his co-accused namely Mohammad Zubair, Ibrahim, Nasreen and Ivad have already been released on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled for bail on the ground of parity with his co-accused Mohammad Zubair and Ibrahim, as the allegations against them are similar to those against the petitioner. Petitioner has undertaken to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that petitioner is involved in a serious offence. The charges, if proved, against the petitioner may entail severe punishment. Petitioner belongs to Uttar Pradesh and there is likelihood of his absconding from the course of justice.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

8. It is not in dispute now that the trial of the case has already commenced. The victim and her father have already