The court considered the voluntary nature of the victim's actions, the failure of the prosecution to provide essential evidence, and the victim and her family's express consent for granting anticipatory bail.

ORDER :

G. Sri Devi, J.

1. This criminal petition is filed, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 194 of 2020 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Jagtial District, which was initially registered under the head of Girl Missing and later section of law was altered from 'Girl Missing' to Sections 363 and 366 of I.P.C. and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short "the Act").

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.12.2020 at about 10.30 hours, the de facto complainant Takkurivari Nagamani, lodged a written complaint before the police stating that on 24.12.2020 at about 7.30 p.m., her younger daughter namely Takkurivari Latha, 17 years, left the house without informing to the inmates and did not return to house and her whereabouts are not known; that they searched for her daughter in their relatives and friends houses, but in vain and, therefore, requested to take necessary action. Basing on the said written complaint, a case in Crime No. 194 of 2020 has been registered by the Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Jagtial District, under the head of Girl Missing. During the course of investigation, on 9.1.2021 the victim girl came to the police station and on enquiry she revealed that the petitioner fell in love with her and on 24.12.2020 at 7.30 p.m. the petitioner met her at Ammakkapet Village, made a promise to marry her, kidnapped her in his car and taken her to Jagtial and on the next day he married her at Sri Sitharamula Temple, later taken her to Hyderabad. On 7.1.2021, the petitioner fled away from there by informing that he is going to convince her parents, but did not return and thereafter she informed the same to her parents.

3. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the complaint itself there is no allegation of kidnapping the victim girl by the petitioner, however, the police during the course of investigation has altered the section of law from 'Girl Missing' to Sections 363 and 366 of I.P.C. and Section 12 of the Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner and the victim girl are in love with each other since two years and the victim voluntarily approached the petitioner to marry her and accordingly, he married the victim on 25.12.2020 at Sitharamula Temple at Jagtial. While the investigation is pending, the petitioner and the victim girl returned home and informed the family members of the victim that the petitioner and the victim married on 25.12.2020 and they have accepted their marriage and took the victim to the police station and that the police have recorded the statement of the victim girl. It is also submitted that the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the concerned Magistrate, wherein the victim has categorically stated that she is in love with the petitioner and had voluntarily left home and married the petitioner and that they are living happily. It is also submitted that the victim as well as her parents have also given affidavits, which were filed before this Court, stating that they have no objection to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is further submitted that entire investigation has been completed and nothing is left except filing of the charge-sheet and as such there is no chance of influencing the witnesses. It is also submitted that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed in the event of his enlargement on anticipatory bail. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 and the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Joy