JUDGMENT KULDIP SINGH, J. 1. THIS judgment shall dispose of Cr.M.P.(M) No. 494 of 2013-D and Cr.MP(M) No.495 of 2013-D filed by Rajan Kumar and Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes Smt. Sunita Devi respectively under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing them on bail in FIR No. 43 of 2013 dated 4.5.2013, registered at Police Station, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P. under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 120-B IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. IT has been stated that petitioner is married having two daughters. Jagdev Singh elder brother of the petitioner is living separately with his mother. The families of Jagdev Singh and petitioner are separate in mess and shelter. Jagdev Singh is working as driver. Rajgarh police visited the house of Jagdev Singh and took him alongwith a lady who claimed to be the wife of Jagdev Singh. The petitioner is not aware about the marriage of Jagdev Singh with that lady. The petitioner has come to know that a case under Sections 366, 376 and 120-B IPC has been registered against Jagdev Singh and in that case Jagdev Singh is in custody. The petitioner has also been implicated in that case on false accusation whereas the petitioner is innocent and has no role to play in the commission of offence. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in the case. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds, as per the directions of the Court. 3. THE petitioner Smt. Sunita Devi is the wife of Rajan Kumar in Cr.MP(M) No.494 of 2013. She has moved the application with almost same averments as made by the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.494 of 2013-D. 4. THE status report has been submitted in Cr.MP(M) No.494 of 2013-D. It has been stated in the report that complainant Babu Ram on 4.5.2013 had submitted a written complaint to the police. It has been stated that daughter of the complainant aged about 15 years left the house on 23.4.2013 without disclosing her whereabouts. He came to know that some Pardeep Kumar, driver had taken her away. She was searched but could not be traced. On telephone, the prosecutrix disclosed that she was at Kinnaur. On this, case was registered. The statements of witnesses were recorded during investigation. He came to know that some Pardeep Kumar, driver had taken her away. She was searched but could not be traced. On telephone, the prosecutrix disclosed that she was at Kinnaur. On this, case was registered. The statements of witnesses were recorded during investigation. The victim was located at Bhar wain, Chintpurani, as per mobile tower location but she could not be traced. On 21.5.2013 when the police was proceedings towards Una, the prosecutrix was found at Solan with boy Jagdev Singh and they were sitting in the bus. The complainant and his wife identified the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix and Jagdev Singh were brought to Rajgarh. 5. THE prosecutrix during investigation disclosed that Rajan brother and Priya sister-in-law of Jagdev Singh came to the house of one Ram Lal on 23.4.2013. Rajan and Priya told her to accompany them and not to disclose this fact to anybody. The prosecutrix accompanied Rajan and Priya and she came in contact with Jagdev Singh. The brother and sister-in-law of Jagdev told the prosecutrix that she will have to marry Jagdev. The prosecutrix was forced to marry Jagdev Singh on 26.4.2013. Jagdev Singh since then had been committing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent. Jagdev Singh was arrested on 21.5.2013. The prosecutrix and Jagdev Singh were got medically examined. On 1.6.2013, Rajan and Sunita produced the copies of orders passed by the High Court. According to the Investigating Agency the petitioners are not disclosing the truth. It has been stated that in the event of bail to the petitioners they will influence the witnesses. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail applications. 6. HEARD and perused the record. It has come in the investigation that Jagdev Singh has been arrested on 21.5.2013 and since then he is in custody. The date of birth of the prosecutrix as per School Leaving Certificate, a copy of which is in the police file, indicates that she was born on 10.3.1997. The prosecutrix left the house of the complainant on 23.4.2013. The prosecutrix went from one place to another place with Jagdev Singh and she was found by chance on 21.5.2013 in a bus at Solan alongwith Jagdev Singh. The prosecutrix left the house of the complainant on 23.4.2013. The prosecutrix went from one place to another place with Jagdev Singh and she was found by chance on 21.5.2013 in a bus at Solan alongwith Jagdev Singh. The Investigating Agency has not pointed out any evidence that from 23.4.2013 to 21.5.2013 the prosecutrix had made any attempt to lodge a report with the police or lawful authority regarding her forceful companionship with Jagdev Singh nor any evidence has been pointed out by Investigating Agency that during this period prosecutrix made an attempt to come out from the clutches of Jagdev Singh. It has not been pointed out that recovery is yet to be made from the petitioner s. The influence of the petitioners over the witnesses in the event of their bails alleged by the Investigating Agency is vague. In any case, if petitioners will make an attempt to influence the witnesses or interfere in the investigation in any manner then law will take its own course. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. In view of above, both the petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.43 of 2013 dated 4.5.2013, registered at Police Station, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P. under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 120-B IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer with the conditions that the petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 7. THE observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail petitions and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.