GUMAN MAL LODHA, J.— Tears of widow, Savitri Devi, the mother; "Cheers of daughter", Meera; a prayer for anticipatory bail by the lover cum alleged husband Krishna accused, in a criminal case of abduction launched by the mother-complainant, provided pathetic and not romantic scene in this court, which was packed with visitor and spectators to watch the demeanour of the girl Meera and hear her statement for making the option between the mother on the one side and the alleged abductor pro claming to be lover and husband on the other side. Meeras blank blunt refusal even to talk to mother Savitri Devi, inspite of the courts desire marked the climax of the impact of the alleged love, romance or coercion, that seemingly exhibited the victory of sex emotional surcharged mind of Meera and defeat of maternal pious emotional tearful appeal of God cursed widow mother. 2. An important revelation of the case is that the alleged marriage has not been registered under the Special Marriage Act or other law, but someone in Arya Samaj Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur has issued a certificate as if he has commercialised the great reformist movement of the great Maharshi Dayanand by running a "marriage Beurau for providing evidence in cases of disputed marriages and alleged abductions. 3. I have been constrained to make this observation because in a good number of abduction cases, the defence of marriage is pleaded by production of certificates of solemnisation of marriages on exactly the above pattern. 4. With the above preface, let me now mention the facts of the case. 5. This application has been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter Cr.P.C), by Krishna Swaroop Mathur, applicant, who is required in criminal case (F.I.R. No. 131/81), dated the 27th March 1981, Police Station Kotwali, Alwar, for investigation of offence under Section 363/366 I.P.C. 6. One Shrimati Savitri Devi, widow of Narendra Kumar Somvanshi, resident of Suganbai ki Dharamshala, Alwar, filed a written complaint, dated the 27th March, 1981 in Police Station Kotwali, Alwar. According to the complaint, the applicant Krishna Swaroop is living in the house infront of the house of the complainant. The shop and the Godown of Omkar Swaroop, father of the applicant Krishna Swaroop were mortgaged in favour of the son of the complainant-mother. According to the complaint, the applicant Krishna Swaroop is living in the house infront of the house of the complainant. The shop and the Godown of Omkar Swaroop, father of the applicant Krishna Swaroop were mortgaged in favour of the son of the complainant-mother. According to the decree of the court, the payment was to be made by January, 1981 and that having not been done, the mortgaged property was put to auction on 23rd March, 1981 Applicant, Krishna Swaroop Mathur who is son of Omkar Swaroop, against whom a decree has been passed and who is employee in the Jail Department threatened the complainant in Sabzi Mandi of Alwar that either she should decide about the shop and godown, otherwise she will have to face grave consequences. On March 23, 1981, Meera aged 16-17 years, daughter of the complainant left her house at about 12.00 in the noon, saying that she was going to Arya Kanya School, Alwar for obtaining Roll number of Matric examinations. The complainant went to the hospital for making any inquiry about the health of her maternal uncles daughter. When she returned at 3 00 p.m., observed that her daughter was missing. Even after making inquiries, she could not be traced. A friend of her daughter Meera, Hitesh, who is daughter of Alka Hotels Proprietor, was then approached, where the cycle of the girl was found. On an inquiry as to what happened to Meera, friends mother replied that she came there for about sometime but it is not known, where she had gone. 7. The whole night of 23rd March, 1981 was spent in searching the girl Meera. It was revealed that Krishna Swaroop, [applicant, s/o Omkar Swaroop, was also missing from his house on that day. The complainant and her son continued their search at Delhi also. Ultimately, on inquiry from Krishna Swaroops bouse, Reghunandan Swaroop, brother of Onkar Swaroop Mathur told the complainant that by this time, the girl might have married. Babulal, Driver of Car No. RSK 160, gave out to brother of the complainant that on 23rd March, 1981 boy living in front of house of the complainant and one more boy have gone to Jaipur in his car, and they left the car at Chhoti Chopar. The Driver also told the mother that Krishna Swaroop has taken the girl by threats. The Driver also told the mother that Krishna Swaroop has taken the girl by threats. On this, the investigation started under Section 363 I.P.C. 8. The petitioner, Krishna Swaroop applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C., and the same has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar on April 7, 1981. 9. This Court, on April 30, 1981, passed an order which reads as under:-"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant, mother of the girl. Learned Public Prosecutor wants to call for the case diary for which he prays for a short time. Time is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a request that he will produce the girl in court in order to find her wishes. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would produce the girl on Monday, 4th May, 1981. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has apprehension that in case girl will be produced in court the complainant party may cause trouble and may put hindrance in producing the girl in court. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is directed that the police or the complainant party shall not put any hindrance in producing the girl in court on 4.5.81. In the meantime, it is also directed that the police shall not arrest the petitioner. Put up on 4.5.81. In the meantime, the learned public prosecutor may also call for the case diary." 10. On 4th May, 1981, Mr. Sharma the learned counsel for the petitioner Krishna Swaroop produced the girl, Meera in the Court and prays before the Court that she should be examined for ascertaining her wishes Mr. R.P. Goyal the learned counsel for the complainant, and Mr. R.P. Singh, the learned Public Prosecutor objected to it on the ground that the girl was under duress, coercion and influence of the petitioner-Krishna Swaroop. It was prayed that she should be sent to a place, where she should have independent thinking and should have no influence of the boy, petitioner. 11. After considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court allowed the girl to sit in the Chamber of the Additional Registrar, so that the mother and the brother of the girl can meet her. 11. After considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court allowed the girl to sit in the Chamber of the Additional Registrar, so that the mother and the brother of the girl can meet her. Today also, before this case was taken up at 10.00 a.m., the mother and the brother of the girl were allowed to have meeting with the girl Meera in the Chamber of the Additional Registrar, where they stayed at about two hours or so. 12. When the case was taken up, Mr. Goyal, the learned counsel for the mother submitted that the girl is still under duress, influence and threat, and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by examining her. The learned Public Prosecutor also object to the examination of the girl Meera by this court on a similar plea as made by Mr. Goyal. 13. Mr. Sharma requested that the girl should be examined by this Court to ascertain her desire and wishes. I have carefully considered the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the objections raised by the learned counsel for the complainant-mother, and the learned Public Prosecutor. It must be mentioned-at the very out set that the girl has not been called by this Court either by a search warrant or by any order. The proceedings before this Court are not in pursuance of the issuance of search warrant. Whether these are material or relevant to decide the question of marriage by free will or coercion; is a dispute which has arisen during the course of the arguments. All that is required, to be considered is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner-Krishna Swaroop is entitled to released on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 14. Normally, the function of ascertaining the facts and circumstances, in which the girl-Meera was taken by the boy-Krishna Swaroop, who is an accused in this case, is of the investigating agency, i e., Station House Officer, Police Station concerned or the Deputy Superintendent of Police, concerned, who is the incharge of the investigation. In view of the fact, that the serious objections have been raised by the learned counsel for the mother of the girl and also by the learned Public Prosecutor, am not inclined to examine the girl at this stage. In view of the fact, that the serious objections have been raised by the learned counsel for the mother of the girl and also by the learned Public Prosecutor, am not inclined to examine the girl at this stage. This is neither necessary for the purpose of the decision of the bail application Since the matter is not before this Court for adjudication of any question about the free will of the girl at this stage, either for the purpose of deciding the validity of the marriage or for the purpose of deciding, whether an offence as alleged is mada out or not?, I would refrain from pre judging the matter and creating any situation under which the investigation of the case may be hampered. The law must be allowed to take its own course. It is therefore, decided that the investigating agency would be free to ascertain and examine the girl, Mst. Meera, for the purpose of finding out the facts and circumstances of the case and whether the offence as alleged by the mother of the girl Meera, is made or not ? The prayer of Mr. Sharma for examination of the girl Meera by this Court at this stage for ascertaining her desire or wishes for finding out, whether she has gone with the boy Krishna Swaroop petitioner with her own free will or she has been forcibly taken by deceitful means; is, therefore, not accept table at this stage, and consequently the same is rejected. 15. The crucial question, which now required consideration and adjudication, is whether the petitioner Krishna Swaroop Mathur is entitled to be released on bail under the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Both, before the lower court and this Court, educational institutes certificates have been pro-duced by the petitioner-Krishna Swaroop Mathur. They go to show that the date of birth as recorded in the educational institute of girl Meera, is 8th June, 1962. So far as the Investigating Agency is concerned, they have not ascertained the age of the girl Meera from the educational institutes or any other place so far. The mere verbal statement by Mr. Goyal. or Mr. Heman Dass, that the educational institutes certificates should not be relied upon at this stage, is not tenable for the purpose of consideration of age of the girl Meera prima facie. The mere verbal statement by Mr. Goyal. or Mr. Heman Dass, that the educational institutes certificates should not be relied upon at this stage, is not tenable for the purpose of consideration of age of the girl Meera prima facie. The Investigating Agency was free to ascertain from the educational Institutes, whether the date of birth as certified by them and produced before the Sessions Judge, is genuine or false. The Investigating Agency could have even seized the record of the educational Institutes, and ascertained for themselves the exact date of birth of the girl Meera. Having not done so, an inference is irresistible that prima facie the age of the girl as disclosed by the certificates of the educational institutes is to be taken as correct. 16. That creates a situation where the girl Meera is of more than 16 years of age, who is present before this Court. Obviously, because she is anxious to give statement since yesterday and because the mother and the brother of the girl Meera having met her twice yesterday and today, and are still resisting for recording of the statement, the speaking circumstances, which can not be ignored, is that subject to the further investigation for which this Court would not make or express any comments, the girl at the moment is not to support the prosecution case. Whether it is on account of duress, influence, any threats, as alleged by Mr. Goyal, and Mr. Heman Dass, or whether it is on account of the love marriage as alleged by Mr. Sharma, for which it is asserted that she is an adult and has taken a decision of her free will; is a question on which no final adjudication can be made by this Court at this premature stage of the investigation. Goyal, and Mr. Heman Dass, or whether it is on account of the love marriage as alleged by Mr. Sharma, for which it is asserted that she is an adult and has taken a decision of her free will; is a question on which no final adjudication can be made by this Court at this premature stage of the investigation. It is true that on the one side, the mother and the brother of girl Meera are anxious to have her custody in order to make her understand the alleged consequenste of going with the boy and performing the marriage, and on the other hand, the girl standing here in this Court tor last two days, is exhibiting adaman to stay with the boy Krishna Swaroop, and further stick to her decision of her marriage which according to the petitioner Krishna Swaroop, has already been celebrated in Arya Samaj, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Social aspect of this issue is foreign to domain of law. What are those factors which persuaded the girl Meera to take such a decision, if at all that has been taken, is again a matter of investigation. May be that the story given by the mother has truth in it or may be that an adult girl, who has been living with the boy as a neighbour, brain wasted by cinema sex romances has developed a fancy for the boy for conducting inter caste love marriage, but that again would be unfolded by proper investigation alone. 17. The basic and fundamental feature of this case, which admits of no doubt, is that prima facie the girl Meera is an adult girl of more than 18 years of age; again prima facie, subject to investigation the case as stands upto from the investigation record, is not one where use of force, deceitful means, threat or any such questionable methods by the petitioner-accused for persuading the girl to go with him, stands prima facie established. That being so, the question, which again requires adjudication is whether the praver of the petitioner Krishna Swaroop for grant of anticipatory bail, should be rejected, because of the mothers complaint against the boy. 18. That being so, the question, which again requires adjudication is whether the praver of the petitioner Krishna Swaroop for grant of anticipatory bail, should be rejected, because of the mothers complaint against the boy. 18. The failure of the mother and the brother after a few hours of remaining in exclusive meeting for two days with the girl Meera to persuade her to support the case of the prosecution is prima facie a factor which weighs in favour of the circumstances, which are relevant for deciding the question of anticipatory bail. It is established law that in a case of this nature where the facts are patent and speaking, a boy or the accused should not be deprived of his liberty at this stage simply because a complaint has been made by the mother. It may be unfortunate that the mother, who is widow and who has created emotional attachment with the girl, is not in a position to tolerate the developments which has happened but as I have already mentioned above, those aspects of the social life and the impacts are irrelevant to a law court. That being so, it is difficult for this Court to provide any assistance to a widow mother by reacting to the assistance of the girl Meera, by rejecting the bail application. That would be a reaction which is not warranted by law. With all sympathy for the widow mother, the Court feels its helplessness in providing any assistance in this matter. It was, infact, this keen desire of the Court to provide possible help and assistance to the widow mother, that I adjourned the case yesterday and insisted that the mother should be allowed to talk with the girl Meera freely and that also for sufficient time so that in case the girl Meera is under influence or emotion or sentiment that can be removed and her free will can be ascertained. Unfortunately, inspite of that meeting twice with the girl and mother, for more than two hours, nothing fruitful has come. 19. Unfortunately, inspite of that meeting twice with the girl and mother, for more than two hours, nothing fruitful has come. 19. The net result of the discussion is that I am of the opinion that though so far as the investigation of the case is concerned, the accused petitioner, Krishna Swaroop Mathur, would submit, himself, for interrogation and inquiry as would be necessary according to the condition, which I am going to impose and further, the investigating agency would be free to interrogate and examine not only the accused petitioner but the girl Meera, daughter of the complainant for the purpose of completion of the investigation, but there is no reason whatsoever nor dictates of justice, equity or good conscience warrant that in the peculiar facts and circumstances mentioned above, the boy should be banded over to the police for investigation, under arrest. 20. The net result is that the application under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C., for anticipatory bail is accepted. It is, therefore, ordered that the S.H.O., P.S., Kotwali, Alwar would release the accused-petitioner, Krishna Swaroop Mathur S/o Omkar Swaroop Mathur R/o near Sugni Bai-ki-Dbaramshala, Alwar, on his furnishing of two surities of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand only) each and a personal bond of Rs, 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), if apprehended, for attending the investigation and inquiry or trial if any thereafter. 21. It is further ordered that during the pendency of the investigation, (i) the accused petitioner, Krishna Swaroop Mathur, would make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that he would not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and (in) that he would not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 22 Since in the instant case, the accused petitioner, Krishna Swaroop Mathur has presented Meera, yesterday and today, it would also be the day of the accused petitioner to produce the girl Meera for interrogation or any inquiry, if required by the police officer.