Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. This order will dispose of Crl. M. 26051-M/2000 and Crl. M. 26053-M/2000. 2. FIR No. 201 dated 2.5.2000 was registered at Police Station, Kotwali Bathinda at the instance of the petitioner. In this FIR, it is stated that the petitioner has two daughters. The elder daughter is married and younger daughter-Sukhpreet Kaur aged about 17 years and six months, was studying in 10+2 in Khalsa Senior Secondary School (Girls), Bathinda. On 24.4.2000, she had gone as usual in the morning, but did not return home. A report was made to the police of Chawki Canal Colony, Bathinda on 27.4.2000. On 1.5.2000, the neighbour of the petitioner informed him that if he wants to recover his daughter, he should meet Junk dealer of Partap Nagar. The petitioner was asked to talk to a person named Neelam Devi whose telephone numbers had been given to the friend of the petitioner. It is stated that when the petitioner talked to Neelam Devi on telephone, she threatened him either to pay a sum of Rs. 3.00 lacs or his daughter will be married with Sushil Kumar @ Sheela on Tuesday. This person, however, did not allow the petitioner to talk to his daughter. On the basis of this, FIR was registered against Usha Rani wife of Mohinder Pal Caste Pandit, Sushil Kumar @ Sheela son of Mohinder Pal resident of Shahkot now resident of Quarter No. L-102, Railway Colony, Bathinda, his daughter Kavita wife of Bindu, Sonu wife of Sonu Kumar resident of Jawahar Camp, Ludhiana and Kailash Chander, contractor resident of Partap Nagar, Bathinda and Neelam Devi, resident of Nakodar. Earlier the FIR was registered under Sections 363, 366, 506, 120-B of the I.P.C. After the recovery of Sukhpreet Kaur, the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. was added, allegedly, on the basis of the statement made by the girl. Pursuant to the registration of the case, Sushil Kumar @ Sheela, Usha Rani and Sonu were taken into custody. Usha Rani and Sonu Sharma, thereafter applied for bail which was granted. Apprehending her arrest, Neelam Devi also applied for anticipatory bail which was granted. The present petitions have been filed for cancellation of the bail granted to these petitioners. The husband, namely, Sushil Kumar @ Sheela is still confined in jail. 3. Usha Rani and Sonu Sharma, thereafter applied for bail which was granted. Apprehending her arrest, Neelam Devi also applied for anticipatory bail which was granted. The present petitions have been filed for cancellation of the bail granted to these petitioners. The husband, namely, Sushil Kumar @ Sheela is still confined in jail. 3. In view of the serious allegations made, the respondents were asked to remain present in Court and to produce the girl in Court. On various occasions, fresh notices were issued to the respondents, but the respondents did not produce the girl and they also did not put in appearance. Ultimately, this Court, by order dated 12.9.2000, issued directions to the Investigating Officer to produce Sukhpreet Kaur in Court on the next date of hearing and respondents were also directed to remain present in Court. In pursuance to the orders, the respondents in both the petitions are present in Court. The girl Sukhpreet Kaur is also present. 4. Respondent-Neelam Devi who is present in Court, has stated that she has absolutely no concern with the matter. She has been unnecessarily harassed and beaten up at the instance of the petitioner. 5. On enquiry from the girl-Sukhpreet Kaur, she has stated that she has voluntarily married Sushil Kumar @ Sheela. At this point, the girl has pointed out that the name of her husband has been wrongly mentioned as Sushil Kumar. His name is actually Sunil Kumar @ Sheela. She has also stated that her name has also been wrongly mentioned as Sukhpreet Kaur whereas her name is actually Sukhjit Kaur. She has further stated that when she made the statement before the police, she had told the true story. She had never made any allegations to the effect that Sunil Kumar @ Sheela had committed the crime of rape as alleged. She has stated that her statement had not been correctly recorded at the instance of her father who is trying to break up her marriage. She has further stated that her parents and her elder sister are trying to forcibly marry her to some person other than her husband who is in jail. I do not see any reason to disbelieve the statement made by the girl in this Court. 6. The father, who is present in Court, whilst answering the questions put by this Court, has styled his daughter as a chattel, thing or object. I do not see any reason to disbelieve the statement made by the girl in this Court. 6. The father, who is present in Court, whilst answering the questions put by this Court, has styled his daughter as a chattel, thing or object. He has stated that object belonging to him had been stolen by the alleged husband. 7. It is unfortunate that even on the verge of 21st Century, a daughter is still being treated as an object which can be owned and disposed of at the Will of the parents. It is quite apparent that the parents are completely unconcerned with the welfare of their daughter. They are much more concerned with saving their "honour". They want their daughter to be married in their own caste. The mother, who is present in Court, has stated that the status of her daughter has not changed merely because she has reached the age of majority. She has stated that the daughter is obliged to do as her parents dictate since they had suffered so many hardships in bringing her up. These sentiments cannot take away the legal rights bestowed upon the girl-Sukhjit Kaur on her reaching the age of majority. It deserves to be noticed that the girl Sukhjit Kaur has voluntarily married the boy-Sunil Kumar @ Sheela. The parents have no legal authority to interfere in the married life of Sukhjit Kaur and her husband Sunil Kumar @ Sheela. 8. In view of the above, both the petitions are dismissed. 9. As noticed above, the husband of Sukhjit Kaur is still languishing in jail inspite of not having committed any crime. On being asked by this Court, Sukhjit Kaur has informed this Court that she is being prevented from making an application for bail for the release of her husband. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that this Court is left with no option but to exercise suo motu powers under Section 482 read with Section 439, Cr.P.C. to pass appropriate orders in order to render justice to Sukhjit Kaur and her husband-Sunil Kumar @ Sheela. 10. Consequently, Sunil Kumar @ Sheela son of Mohinder Pal who is at present lodged in Central Jail, Bathinda, is directed to be released forthwith on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 500/ -. 10. Consequently, Sunil Kumar @ Sheela son of Mohinder Pal who is at present lodged in Central Jail, Bathinda, is directed to be released forthwith on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 500/ -. Further the parents of the girl, who are present in Court are directed not to interfere in the life and liberty of Sukhjit Kaur and her husband-Sunil Kumar @ Sheela. The local police is also directed to render all possible assistance to the married couple, if and when required. Copy of this order be given Dasti under the signature of the Special Secretary of this Court.