JUDGMENT Mrs. Manisha Batra, J. (Oral) Through the instant petition, filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 167, dated 15.07.2023, under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC at Police Station Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the written complaint filed by the complainant 'P' (name withheld) alleging therein that her daughter 'PL' (name withheld), who was studying in 12th Class, was found missing from her house in the intervening night of 12-13.07.2023, when she herself had woken up. They had kept on searching for their daughter but could not find her and now they had come to know that she had been enticed away by the petitioner on the pretext of performing marriage with her. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. In the meantime, the victim and the petitioner filed a petition before this Court, bearing CRWP-7679-2023, seeking protection to their life and liberty. Since the victim was minor, she was ordered to be sent to Aashiana, Sector 16, Panchkula. The custody of the victim was then handed over to her mother/complainant. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein she stated that her family members were forcibly getting her married somewhere else, to which, she was resisting and her brother had thrown her out of her house by extending beatings to her. She also stated that she had gone to the petitioner, who was her neighbour and a friend, and had insisted him to take her somewhere by extending threat to commit suicide otherwise and it was on her insistence that the petitioner had taken her to Yamuna Nagar and then to some other place. She also refused to get her medico-legal examination conducted. The investigation is still going on. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is delay of three days in lodging the FIR, which does not stand explained. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim had herself stated that she had left her house on her own will as her parents had fixed her marriage somewhere else. There is delay of three days in lodging the FIR, which does not stand explained. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim had herself stated that she had left her house on her own will as her parents had fixed her marriage somewhere else. The complainant, who is mother of the victim, is dead against the petitioner. His custodial interrogation is not required. Neither any recovery is to be effected from him. His detention would not serve any useful purpose. Therefore, it is argued that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State, as per which, during the course of investigation, another FIR bearing No. 282 dated 20.09.2023 has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 323, 341, 354A, 506 and 34 of the IPC at Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula, on the basis of a complaint filed by the mother of the victim, i.e. complainant of this case, alleging that on that day, while she was taking back the victim from Aashiana, Sector 16, Panchkula, then the petitioner had wrongfully restrained her and had assaulted her and had made obscene gestures. It is submitted that there are chances of the petitioner misusing the concession of bail, if granted and also chances of his intimidating the complainant and other material witnesses. Thorough investigation in the matter is required. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not been joining the investigation in FIR No. 282. Hence, it is argued that the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the material placed on record. 6. The petitioner is alleged to have enticed away and is also alleged to have induced the victim, who was 17 ½ years' old at the time of occurrence, on the pretext of performing marriage with her. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim is shown to have stated that it was she, who had compelled the petitioner to take her somewhere else and even had extended threat to commit suicide, he did not do so. The petitioner and the victim appear to be in a relationship, which obviously is not acceptable to the family members of the victim. The victim was a 17 ½ years' old girl at the time of occurrence. The petitioner and the victim appear to be in a relationship, which obviously is not acceptable to the family members of the victim. The victim was a 17 ½ years' old girl at the time of occurrence. Though she was obviously a minor and was alleged to have been taken by the petitioner but it is clear from her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she had left her father's protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing and that she had voluntarily joined the petitioner. In S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras : AIR 1965 SC 942 , in such circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that if the accused is proved/shown to have played some role at the stage by which he either solicited or persuaded the minor to abandon the legal guardians, it would be sufficient to hold the person guilty of kidnapping. As in that case, it had come on record that the minor had walked out of her house without any inducement by the accused, therefore, the accused was not held guilty of offence punishable under Section 363 IPC. Since in the present case, no persuasion or inducement on the part of the petitioner is shown to have been made to the victim in her walking out of the house of her parents as such it is a debatable question as to whether the subject offences have been made out against the petitioner? Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Neither any recovery is to be effected from him. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. With regard to allegations that he has assaulted the complainant/mother of the victim on 20.09.2023, a separate FIR has been registered and the law will take its own course in that regard. 7. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. With regard to allegations that he has assaulted the complainant/mother of the victim on 20.09.2023, a separate FIR has been registered and the law will take its own course in that regard. 7. Accordingly, without making any comment on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory bail subject to the condition that he would surrender before the Investigating Officer within a period of ten days from today and in that eventuality, the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer shall release him on bail, on furnishing personal/surety bonds to his satisfaction by the petitioner, and further subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not influence/intimidate or try to meet the victim or her mother/complainant, shall not visit their house or try to influence any other witness of the case. This order shall also be subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before him as and when required. (ii) He 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. (iii) He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail. 8. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.