JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the status report and Investigating Officer, ASI Surinder Kumar of Police Station, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra has produced the record. 2. Heard. 3. Petitioner is an accused in FIR No.109 of 2013 registered against him under Sections 366, 376A, 506 and 201 of Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra. 4. The allegations against him as disclosed from the record, in a nutshell, are that he kidnapped the prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship of her parents intentionally to compel her to solemnize marriage with him and for being seduced to sexual intercourse. She was taken by him to Delhi and made to stay at different places including hotels and subjected to sexual intercourse against her will and without her consent. He was having drat (sickle) and a knife with him and threatened her to do away with in case she refused to solemnize marriage with him. Ultimately, he succeeded in solemnizing marriage with her forcibly in Arya Samaj Temple at Delhi. 5. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in this case on 29th June, 2013. The investigation is now complete and challan against him stands filed. Even the prosecution evidence also stands recorded partly. He, however, is still in custody as the application, he previously filed in the Sessions Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, was dismissed, whereas, the one filed in this Court was ordered to be dismissed as withdraw vide order Annexure P-2, annexed to this petition. 6. Having gone through the record produced by learned Additional Advocate General as well as the documents annexed with this application and taking into consideration the submissions made on both sides though at this stage when the present is an application for grant of bail, no observation on merits can be made as in that event prejudice is likely to be caused to the case of either party, however, suffice would it to say that the prosecutrix, admittedly, being 21 years of age at the time of commission of the offence, was major. She while in the company of the accused-petitioner visited several places. Not only this, but the photographs annexed to this petition reveal that she even solemnized marriage also with the accused-petitioner, allegedly, in Arya Samaj Temple, Delhi. She has executed affidavit also to this effect. 7. She while in the company of the accused-petitioner visited several places. Not only this, but the photographs annexed to this petition reveal that she even solemnized marriage also with the accused-petitioner, allegedly, in Arya Samaj Temple, Delhi. She has executed affidavit also to this effect. 7. Be it stated that while deciding the question of grant or refusal of bail, the factors such as, likelihood of the accused-petitioner fleeing away from justice, tampering with the evidence and hampering the investigating of the case and terrorizing the witnesses, if released on bail weigh in the mind of the Court. In the case in hand, the statements of material prosecution witnesses, i.e. own statement of the prosecutrix and also her father stand recorded. The other witnesses mostly are official. It cannot be said that he being an influential person is in a position to win over and dissuade the witnesses from disclosing the factual position in the Court. The trial, of course, is in progress. He being permanent resident of district Kangra can reasonably be believed to have roots in the society. This Court, therefore, see no reason that he will abscond or jump over the bail and will not be available during the course of further proceedings in this case or trial, if admitted on bail. Otherwise also, in order to secure the presence of the accused, his movements can be restricted by imposing suitable conditions upon him. However, keeping in view that he is in custody since 29th June, 2013 and that the trial may take some more time for its completion, in the given facts and circumstances, his further detention is unwarranted. 8. For all the reasons hereinabove, this petition is allowed. However, keeping in view that he is in custody since 29th June, 2013 and that the trial may take some more time for its completion, in the given facts and circumstances, his further detention is unwarranted. 8. For all the reasons hereinabove, this petition is allowed. Consequently, it is ordered that the accused-petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with the case registered against him vide FIR No.109 of 2013 of 2013, shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court and abiding by further conditions that: He shall; (a) regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) not tamper or hamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever; (c) not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (d) not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 9. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 10. The observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. The application stands accordingly disposed of.