S. N. Kapoor, J. ( 1 ) THE accused has been charged for the offence under Section 366 and 376 IPC. ( 2 ) THIS bail petition is being pressed mainly on two grounds; (i) that the prosecutrix was the consenting party; and (ii) that the Delhi courts have no jurisdiction for the rape was committed at Gurgaon. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, Charu Malhotra, the prosecutrix, aged 17 years knew Dewan Chand, the accused. Dewan Chand met her at about 10. 00 AM at her school at R. K. Puram in his Maruti car along with her another neighbour Kishan @ Billa. Dewan Chand offered her to have a drive in his car. Since Meenakshi, her friend and class-mate was with her, she herself and Meenakshi accepted the offer to enjoy riding in the car driven by Dewan Chand. When they reached near Munirka, Kishan on the ground that he had some work, alighted from the car and left. Meenakshi, Dewan and the prosecutrix reached at Gurgaon in the car. Dewan took them to a locked house of which he was having the keys. He opened the door, took her inside the house on the pretext that he had arranged a party and his friends would be. coming very soon. Meenakshi was standing outside the said house. There Dewan started teasing Charu and forcibly committed rape against her wish despite a lot of hue and cry made by her. Later, he dropped her and Meenakshi near Subzi Mandi, Sarojini Nagar, Delhi. Charu came back to her house in a three wheeler scooter and told the entire incident to her mother. She was taken to the hospital by her mother in a PCR van. DD No. 29-A was received on 5th April 1998 itself. The case was registered and a challan prepared under Section 376,363 and 34 IPC. As has been stated earlier, the accused has been charged for offence under Section 376 as well as 366 IPC. ( 4 ) HAVING heard the parties counsel, it is apparent that the rape was committed at Gurgaon. The short questionis whether Delhi courts have any jurisdiction in the matter or not. When it is apparent that the prosecutrix had gone on her own to have a joy ride in the car of Dewan but at the same time certain other facts are also notable. The short questionis whether Delhi courts have any jurisdiction in the matter or not. When it is apparent that the prosecutrix had gone on her own to have a joy ride in the car of Dewan but at the same time certain other facts are also notable. It appears that she had been enticed and that her age was 17 years. She was enticed to have a joy ride and was taken outside the jurisdiction of Delhi courts, to Gurgaon. Prima facie it amounts to abduction. She had been enticed to have a joy ride in order that she might be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse from her DPS RK Puram school. If she had been enticed away from Delhi, then it is required to be seen whether the Delhi courts will have jurisdiction or not. Section 177 relied upon by the learned counsel, no doubt provided that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The offence was admittedly not committed within the jurisdiction of Delhi. The question is whether offence under Section 366 could be said to have been committed at Delhi taking into consideration the prosecution allegation on the face value. It appears that the offence under Section 366 was committed partly within the jurisdiction of Delhi courts and partly in Gurgaon. The offence under Section 366 was continuing from the moment Charu was taken on a joy ride at 10. 15 AM till she was dropped back at Sarojini Nagar. Consequently, the offence was committed in both the areas within the jurisdiction of Delhi as well as Gurgaon and the matter would be covered by Section 178 Crpc. In regard to the contention that she had gone on her own, it appears that it was a planned action of Dewan Chand to take her to Gurgaon otherwise the keys of the house belonging to someone else would not have been in his possession. Agreeing to a joy ride could not be taken as a consent for committing rape nor going inside the house along with Dewan Chand in the circumstances mentioned above would amount to her consent. Agreeing to a joy ride could not be taken as a consent for committing rape nor going inside the house along with Dewan Chand in the circumstances mentioned above would amount to her consent. No doubt, the stay of Meenakshi outside the house is mysterious but at this stage, it cannot be said on that basis that she was a consenting party or that she was above 18 years of age and there is no ground to say that offence under Section 366 is not prima facie established in the case. In so far as the point relating to jurisdiction is concerned, the matter being squarely covered by the provisions of Section 178 and 179, Delhi courts will have jurisdiction to try the two offences. Abduction is a continuing offence and is committed, not only when the abducted person is first taken away from any place, but continues to be committed as long as the abducted person is being removed from one place to another (See Emperor v. Pragand Anr. , AIR 1933 Oudh 45, Emperor v. Nanhua Dhimar and Ors. , AIR 1931 All 55 ). The offence of abduction can be tried or inquired into by any Court having jurisdiction in any of the local areas through which the abducted person has been taken. In Gajjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1921 , owner of truck was issued a permit at Indore for plying his truck between Indore an. out-stations for aperiod of one month (1-7-1960 to 31-7-1960 ). On 19-8-1960 the truck was checked at Nasik while it was on its return journey to Indore and it was found that the number of the month in the dates in the permit had been altered from 7 to 8. The owner and driver were prosecuted under Ss. 466 and 474 Indian Penal Code at Indore. The owner was convicted under Ss. 471 and 174 IPC but the driver was acquitted. The question was whether the Court at Indore had jurisdiction. In this judgment Supreme Court observed as under: 3. ". . . The appellant in the present case had a forged permit which could be used by him at any of the points between Indore and any out-station. 471 and 174 IPC but the driver was acquitted. The question was whether the Court at Indore had jurisdiction. In this judgment Supreme Court observed as under: 3. ". . . The appellant in the present case had a forged permit which could be used by him at any of the points between Indore and any out-station. He obviously intended using it when occasion demanded and thus he was guilty of an offence under S. 474, Indian Penal Code from the moment he had in his possession the forged permit, knowing that it was forged and intended to use it. As this offence was a continuing one it could be tried at Indore and the offence under S. 471 which was the desired consequence could also be tried at Indore in view of S. 179 above REFERRED TO to. " THE court can hold an enquiry or trial in respect of an offence committed outside its jurisdiction if the offences were committed in the course of of the same transaction. Thus where the accused committed the offence of kidnapping a girl at B and of rape on her at H, the Court at B could make an enquiry and commit the accused to Sessions for both the offences (See Chhotey Mian v. State, 1973 Crl. LJ 908 (All ). ( 5 ) AS regards the appeal, it appears that the petitioner moved four applications before the Additional Sessions Judge and all of them have been dismissed giving cogent reasons. One application was moved earlier also in this court on 10th October 1998. That was also got dismissed as withdrawn after some arguments. I feel that there is no ground to grant bail or interim bail at this stage. However, since the charge had already been framed, the learned trial court is requested to expedite the disposal of the matter at the earliest of its convenience, preferably before 30th September 1999. ( 6 ) WITH these observations, the petition is disposed of.