JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - Petitioner has preferred present petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ''CrPC'') for grant of bail in case FIR No. 131 of 2000, dated 19th March, 2000, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ''IPC'') registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Ram Swaroop, father of victim, had lodged a complaint on 19th March, 2000 stating therein that his 17 years'' old eldest daughter, studying in 8th class, was taking her examinations and on 16th March, 2000 she went to school to appear in the last paper, but, did not return after her examination and on inquiring by his wife in the school, it came to their knowledge that she had left the school after taking the examination. However, she did not return home till late night, whereafter they inquired from her friends, but all in vain, whereupon his wife lodged a missing report in Police Station on 17th March, 2000 and they also continued search of their daughter whereupon it came in knowledge that Daulat Ram, son of Gurdas, living in their neighbourhood, had taken away his daughter, who had also been found missing from his home and was not even found in his relations. Suspecting kidnapping of his daughter by Daulat Ram by alluring/inducing her to marry with him, FIR was lodged in Police Station Paonta Sahib. On 16th August, 2000, daughter of complainant was traced from brick kiln of one Pawan Kumar Garg situated at Lehra Gagga, District Bhatinda, Punjab and after her medical examination on 17th August, 2000, she was handed over to her father, however, petitionerDaulat Ram @ Manoj skipped and could not be traced despite best efforts by the police and ultimately, he was declared proclaimed offender. The challan was prepared and presented in the court on 4th December, 2001. 3. The challan was prepared and presented in the court on 4th December, 2001. 3. Ultimately, on 24th April, 2018, the Proclaimed Offenders Cell (hereinafter referred to as ''PO Cell'') of Police in District Sirmaur succeeded to trace petitionerDaulat Ram @ Manoj in Panchkula and arrested him at about 6.00 p.m. On his production in the Court, he was sent in judicial custody till 1st May, 2018 whereafter, he was handed over to the police by giving police remand since 1st May, 2018 to 5th May, 2018 for further investigation/ interrogation and identification of spot. 4. According to the status report, during his police remand, the petitioner identified the temple at Bilaspur (Haryana) where he had applied betrothal vermilion to the victim and thereafter, spent night in the house of his friend Madan. He has also disclosed that he took the victim and his child to Panchkula/Chandigarh and stayed for 1015 days with his relatives and then stayed at Bhatinda in the brick kiln of one Pawan alongwith victim and his child wherefrom, in his absence, police had taken the victim and out of fear, he had absconded. 5. It is averred in the petition that first wife of the petitioner had expired leaving behind a son, aged about six years. Petitioner has remarried in the year 2005 and out of the said wedlock, he has been blessed with one daughter in the year 2006. Further that now, his son is 24 years old and is doing his business at Panchkula, the daughter is studying in 7th class in City Global School, Zirakpur and the petitioner is residing in Sector 21, Panchkula, Haryana. 6. During pendency of present petition, to rule out possibility of petitioner to flee, wife of the petitioner has filed an affidavit placing on record certain documents, i.e. certificate of residence issued by Municipal Councillor, Panchkula and countersigned by Municipal Commissioner, Panchkula, her Voter Identity Card and Adhaar Card, Date of Birth Certificate of daughter Geetanjali, Senior Secondary Certificate of Sumit son of petitioner, ration card of petitioner''s family and Adhaar Card of the petitioner. 7. In the certificate of residence, it has been certified that Neha, wife of Manoj Kumar (petitioner) is permanent resident of House No. 1228, Sector 21, Panchkula since last fifteen years. The Voter Identity Card of Neha, on the same address, has been issued on 7th November, 2011. 7. In the certificate of residence, it has been certified that Neha, wife of Manoj Kumar (petitioner) is permanent resident of House No. 1228, Sector 21, Panchkula since last fifteen years. The Voter Identity Card of Neha, on the same address, has been issued on 7th November, 2011. The same address has also been shown in her Adhaar Card No. 5627 7466 1987. As per the Birth Certificate, their daughter Geetanjali has born on 13th July, 2006 in General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula and as per Senior Secondary Certificate, Sumit, son of the petitioner, has taken the said examination from Government Model Sanskriti Senior Secondary School, Sector 20, Panchkula in March, 2012. The ration card of the family also indicates that it is residing in Sector 21, Panchkula. Adhaar Card of petitioner, bearing No. 5309 7188 1597, indicates the address of petitioner as House No. 389, Sector 21, Panchkula. 8. Thereafter, another affidavit of wife of the petitioner has been filed placing on record certain documents, i.e. copies of Certificates of Registration of vehicles, affidavit of Sumit Kumar son of the petitioner being purchaser of Swaraj Mazda Bus No. PB 65 AD 8105 and agreement with respect to another Swaraj Mazda Mini Bus No. PB 11 CB 0883 entered upon between one Avtaar Singh (seller) and Sumit (purchaser) son of the petitioner. 9. Certificate of Registration of vehicleMaximo Mini Van, bearing registration No. HR 68 A 6704, indicates that it is owned and possessed by petitioner whereas rest of two vehicles, i.e. Swaraj Mazda Buses, bearing registration Nos. PB 65 AD 8105 and PB 11 CB 0883, are being plied by Sumit son of the petitioner, after possessing these vehicles in pursuance to agreement to sell/affidavit for purchase. 10. In the affidavit filed by wife of the petitioner in support of the petitioner for grant of bail, it is stated that initially, petitioner is resident of Paonta Sahib and thus, she undertakes to furnish two local sureties to ensure availability of petitioner during trial after his release on bail. 10. In the affidavit filed by wife of the petitioner in support of the petitioner for grant of bail, it is stated that initially, petitioner is resident of Paonta Sahib and thus, she undertakes to furnish two local sureties to ensure availability of petitioner during trial after his release on bail. It is also submitted by learned counsel that petitioner and his family is residing in Sector 21, Panchkula for earning his livelihood and family of the petitioner does not own any house in Panchkula, but, are residing in a rented accommodation and earlier they were residing in House No. 389, Sector 21 of Panchkula whereas, now, they are residing in House No. 1228 in Sector 21, Panchkula. It is also stated that value of vehicles being plied by the petitioner and his son is about Rs. 13,00,000/ and the petitioner has roots in society. 11. First wife of the petitioner had expired, leaving behind a six years'' old son, prior to the incident. After the incident, the petitioner has remarried in the year 2005 and a daughter has born out of the said wedlock in General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula on 13th July, 2006. Photocopy of Voter Identity Card of Neha, wife of the petitioner, issued on 7th January, 2011, is also having her address as House No. 1228, Sector 21, Ward No. 29, Panchkula. Copies of Adhaar Cards of Neha as well as petitioner also reflect the address of the residence of petitioner as House No. 1228, Sector 21, Panchkula. Sumit, son of the petitioner has also studied in Senior Secondary Class in the year 2012 in a School at Panchkula. Photocopy of ration card also indicates that it was issued in the year 2005 and has been renewed in the year 2010. All these documents substantiate that petitioner alongwith his family is residing at Panchkula since 20052006. 12. It is apparent from the record, as discussed above, that the alleged commission of offence is of March, 2000. The petitioner has been arrested by the police after eighteen years thereafter. At that time, the victim is stated to be seventeen years old and further allegation is that she was kidnapped and her person was violated without her consent during the period she remained in company of the petitioner. At the time of her recovery from Bhatinda, she was found to be residing alongwith the petitioner. 13. At that time, the victim is stated to be seventeen years old and further allegation is that she was kidnapped and her person was violated without her consent during the period she remained in company of the petitioner. At the time of her recovery from Bhatinda, she was found to be residing alongwith the petitioner. 13. It appears that during the initial months after the recovery of the victim from the place of residence of the petitioner at Bhatinda, as also stated in the status report filed by the police, petitioner did not appear before the police on account of fear, which resulted to declare him proclaimed offender. However, as evident from the material on record, he was residing at Panchkula at least since 2005 onwards and whereafter, as he had already been declared proclaimed offender by the trial Court, no efforts to trace him were made till 2018 as there is nothing on record to establish that the police had ever made any effective efforts to trace the petitioner. Now, petitioner appears to have been arrested after the task to trace him was entrusted to the PO Cell of the police. 14. As per status report and as also stated in affidavit of wife of the petitioner, victim is now serving on contract as Class IV in Government Hospital, Karnal and is residing there in her matrimonial house with her fifteen years'' old son after losing her husband and her statement under Section 164 CrPC has also been recorded recently after the arrest of the petitioner. 15. As apparent from record, she continued to be in the company of the petitioner since the date of her eloping with the petitioner, i.e. 16th March, 2000 till 16th August, 2000. As to whether she was accompanying and living with the petitioner with her consent or not; as to whether she was capable to give her consent or not and further that her person was violated or not, and if yes, whether with her consent or forcibly, are the issues, which are yet to be considered and adjudicated upon by the trial Court. The incident has taken place eighteen years ago. By the passage of time, petitioner has remarried after the alleged incident and is earning his livelihood by plying vehicles at Panchkula and is residing with his family there at least since last thirteen years. The incident has taken place eighteen years ago. By the passage of time, petitioner has remarried after the alleged incident and is earning his livelihood by plying vehicles at Panchkula and is residing with his family there at least since last thirteen years. At the time of incident, his age was approximately 27 years and as of now, he is 45 years old father of two children, out of whom, one is a young girl child of 12 years'' age. The investigation is also complete. 16. There is nothing on record with respect to antecedents of the petitioner including the fact that as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by the Court in respect of any cognizable offence and there is only allegation that he was absconding since 2000 till date, but, as evident from the documents placed on record, as of now, there appears to be no possibility of the petitioner to flee from justice. He is residing at Panchkula since a long time. Through his wife, undertaking of furnishing two sureties has also been given on behalf of the petitioner. 17. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would not be in the interest of justice to keep the petitioner in judicial custody during pendency of trial. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 131 of 2000, dated 19th March, 2000, registered under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., if not required in any other case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned ACJM, Paonta Sahib and as undertaken, at least one surety should be a local surety. With personal bond of the petitioner, all documents filed here in this petition alongwith details of last address shall also be placed on record of the case file pending consideration before the learned ACJM Paonta Sahib. 18. With personal bond of the petitioner, all documents filed here in this petition alongwith details of last address shall also be placed on record of the case file pending consideration before the learned ACJM Paonta Sahib. 18. Petitioner shall further abide by the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other investigating agency or Court in the present case as and when required; (ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses; (iii) That he shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the trial; (iv) That the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected; (v) That the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner; (vi) That the petitioner shall not jump over the bail and shall inform, in writing, regarding any change of address, if any, from the present place of residence, in advance, to Police Station Paonta Sahib. 19. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 20. In case the petitioner violates any condition imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 21. Learned ACJM, Paonta Sahib is directed to ensure compliance of the directions issued by the High Court vide communication No. HHC/VIG/Misc.Instructions / 93IV.7139 dated 18th March, 2013, as applicable. 22. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC. 23. Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. Copy dasti.