JUDGMENT R.K. Saxena, J. - Heard. In a case registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code the Sessions Judge concerned while disposing the bail application of the alleged kidnapper/abductor, summoned the girl and recorded her statement. She then gave out that she had married that accused and was living with him as his wife. She further expressed her desire that she would like to go with him. The Sessions Judge allowed the application for bail and at the same time directed that there should not be any obstruction in the fulfilment of the desire of the girl who had attained the age of discretion and was competent to understand the consequences of her act thereafter, the police did not touch the girl. In view of this order, she left of her own accord, with accused. 2. This revision has been filed by the father of the girl whose grievance is that the Sessions Judge was not justified at all in giving a direction to the said effect. This is noteworthy that the girl has not gone in pursuance of the order of the Sessions Judge. What the Sessions Judge has done is that he has given effect to the desire of the girl. The Sessions Judge had summoned the girl and he was duty bound to see that necessary protection was afforded to the girl who had come to the Court under his orders. There was hardly any justification in allowing the police to put its hand on the girl. It is in my opinion, idle to contend, that the girl has gone under the orders of the Court. As a matter of fact, the Court has only protected her interest. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to give a direction to that effect, the ends of justice do not call for any interference. 3. The petition is dismissed. 4. A copy of the order may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges.