JUDGMENT Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.: (Oral) - The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in a case arising out of FIR No.47 dated 26.7.2011 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 120-B IPC. 2. In the present case, FIR was lodged by Bhagatveer Singh. He stated that he was having two daughters. His eldest daughter (name withheld to protect identity of the prosecutrix) was born on 2.2.1994 and was a student of 10+2. On 16.7.2011, when the entire family was sleeping in their respective rooms, it was found in the morning of 17.7.2011 that the prosecutrix was missing. It was stated in the FIR that the complainant apprehended that his daughter had been enticed away by Varinderjit Singh @ Ghonu with an intention to forcibly marry him. 3. Counsel for the petitioners states that it is a case of elopement. Two young persons of immature age left their houses to marry, as they were having long standing love affairs. 4. This case was adjourned, to enable the prosecution to examine the prosecutrix. Counsel for the petitioners has placed on record evidence of PW1 Dr.Simmy Dhawan, PW2 Dr.Atul Rattan and testimony of the prosecutrix, who appeared as PW3. 5. It is not in dispute that on the day of occurrence, the prosecutrix was 17½ years old. Prosecutrix in her testimony has stated that on 16.7.2011when at the night, she had gone to the fields for answering the call of nature, Varinderjit Singh @ Ghonu-petitioner No.2 administered her something and she became unconscious. When she regained conscious, she found herself at Ludhiana in a train. Thereafter, in the train she went to Bombay, where the accused had taken a room on rent and she stayed there. She returned on 22.8.2011. Thus, it is evident that prosecutrix remained in company of the accused for more than 1 month and 7 days. 6. A perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix further reveals that it is only accused No.2 – Varinderjit Singh @ Ghonu, who had committed sexual intercourse. Whether the prosecutrix herself left with the accused; whether it is a case of elopement due to love affairs or whether she was subjected to forcible intercourse accompanied by abduction or kidnapping, shall be determined during the course of trial. Petitioners are stated to be in custody since 22.8.2011. Whether the prosecutrix herself left with the accused; whether it is a case of elopement due to love affairs or whether she was subjected to forcible intercourse accompanied by abduction or kidnapping, shall be determined during the course of trial. Petitioners are stated to be in custody since 22.8.2011. At this stage, it cannot be ignored that prosecutrix visited public places, travelled in public conveyance and stayed in a rented room for more than one month. 7. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the view that further detention of the petitioners is not warranted. Hence, the present petition is accepted. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. 8. However, anything said herein shall not be construed as final expression on merits of the main case. ---------0.B.S.0------------