ORDER

Bail petitioner, namely Jagdip Singh alias Jagga, who is behind the bars since 03.06.2021, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 Cr.PC, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 198/2021, dated 01.06.2021, under Sections 363, 366- A, 376, IPC and Section 4 of POSCO Act, registered at Police Station Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Sequel to order dated 03.09.2021, respondent-State has filed status report. SI Rohini Thakur, SHO. Women Police Station, Una, District Una, has also come present with record. Record perused and returned. Careful perusal of status report/record reveals that on 01.06.2021, complainant Smriti lodged a complaint at Police Station Sadar Una, District Una, H.P., alleging therein that her younger sister has gone missing on 31.05.2021. She alleged that she has apprehension that bail petitioner Jagdip Singh alias Jagga, has made her to elope with him and as such, efforts be made to locate her. Complainant alleged that at this juncture, she does not want to lodge any FIR. However, having taken note of sensitivity of the matter, FIR detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against present bail petitioner. On 2nd June, 2021, police recovered victim/prosecutrix (name withheld) from Charatgarh near crematorium. After having recorded her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C, police also got her medically examined at RH Una and obtained MLC No.634/2021 dated 02.06.2021, whereby doctor attending upon victim/prosecutrix opined that possibility of penetration cannot be ruled out, however, final opinion shall be given after report of chemical analysis. Apart from above, police also got the statement of victim/prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, on 04.06.2021. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, victim/prosecutrix, disclosed to learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, that on 31.05.2021, she had gone along with bail petitioner Jagdip Singh with whom, she wanted to solemnize marriage, but since, two boys namely Karan and Vicky had clicked their photographs and started blackmailing them, she on account of fear, did not comeback to her house. She stated to learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that she will be becoming 18 years of age on 25th June, 2021 and wants to solemnize marriage with bail petitioner. Since, investigation in this case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of bail.

3. Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly admitting the factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of the offences alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail, deserves outright rejection.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, especially, statement of victim/prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, this Court finds that at the time of alleged incident, victim/prosecutrix was almost 18 years and she of her own volition without their being any external pressure, had joined the company of bail petitioner with whom she wanted to solemnize the marriage. Careful perusal of statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC, nowhere suggests that bail petitioner taking undue advantage of innocence and minority of victim/prosecutrix, compelled her to join his company, rather it appears that victim/prosecutrix and bail petitioner were in constant touch with each other and they wanted to solemnize marriage. As per own version of victim/prosecutrix that though she wanted to come back to her house, but since two boys had clicked their photographs, she on account of fear, did not come bac