O R D E R

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.

1. Petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner in FIR No.226/2019, under Sections 363/366/376 I.P.C. and Sections 4/6 of POCSO Act registered at Police Station: Mayur Vihar, Delhi. 2. In brief, as per the case of the prosecution, the aforesaid FIR was registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar on statement of „Mrs.R‟, mother of the victim, wherein she alleged that some unknown person had kidnapped her daughter namely „N‟, aged about 15 years. The victim was reportedly missing since 09/07/2019.

A Habeas Corpus application was further filed vide Writ Petition No.3453/2019 on behalf of the complainant after the registration of aforesaid FIR No.226/2019, under Sections 363/366/376 I.P.C. and Sections 4/6 of POCSO Act registered at Police Station: Mayur Vihar, Delhi.

The investigation was transferred to AHTU/Crime Branch. The petitioner/accused during course of investigation misled the investigating agency by suppressing the whereabouts of the victim. Even the polygraph test of all the 07 suspects was got conducted in view of orders of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.3453/2019.

3. Finally, on the basis of mobile technical surveillance and CDR location, victim was eventually recovered on 05.10.2021 along with her 8 month old female child from the house of petitioner/accused. The UPT of the victim is also stated to have been found positive and she was about 1½ months pregnant.

4. It is further the case of prosecution that victim was persuaded and kidnapped by petitioner/accused Jagbir, aged about 27 years, when victim was waiting for her boyfriend Shahid @ Rahul at Chilla Village, Mayur Vihar, Delhi. The said Shahid @ Rahul used to reside on rent in a house at Chilla Village, where Jagbir worked as its caretaker. Petitioner further lured the victim and allegedly married her in a temple at Delhi.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 06.10.2021 and the relation between the parties was voluntary. It is urged that the age of the victim has not been verified in accordance with law and the victim/wife of the petitioner is suffering on account of incarceration of the petitioner. It is further urged that petitioner is required to look after the victim as well as the minor children.

Reliance is further placed upon „Chaman vs. State of NCT of Delhi‟

in BAIL APPLN.404/2022 decided on 03.03.2022, „Roshan vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.‟ in BAIL APPLN.2108/2020 decided on 27.11.2020, „Sanjeev Kumar Mehra vs. State & Ors.‟ in W.P.(CRL)2441/2019 decided on 05.11.2019, „Monu vs. State‟ in BAIL APPLN.2146/2014 decided on 03.11.2014, „Vishal @ Ravi vs. State Govt. NCT of Delhi‟ in BAIL APPLN.2735/2021 decided on 12.10.2021, „Kundan & Anr. Vs. State & Ors.‟ in CRL.M.C.27/2022 decided on 21.02.2022, ABC 2016 (I) 34 BOM „Sunil Mahadev Patil vs. State of Maharashtra‟, 283 (2021) Delhi Law Times 321 „Praduman vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.‟, 283 (2021) Delhi Law Times 329 „ABP Network Private Limited vs. Malika Malhotra‟, 275 (2020) Delhi Law Times 49 „Dharmander Singh @ Saheb vs. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi)‟

and 2022 LawSuit(All) 117 „Atul Mishra vs. State of UP and 3 Others’.

6. It may also be noticed that victim does not oppose the application for grant of bail.

7. On the other hand, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that victim was merely 14 years and 06 months of age, at the time she was lured and kidnapped by the petitioner. It is urged that entire machinery was kept in the dark by the petitioner who deliberately concealed the particulars of the victim and led the investigating agency on the wrong path despite filing of the Habeas Corpus petition by the mother of the victim.

8. It is further submitted that the victim was studying in 9th Class at the time of missing and as per her last attended school documents, the Date of Birth is 05.01.2005 and she was only 14 year