MUKHTAR AHMAD BATOO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the medium of instant petition, petitioners are praying for issuance of direction in terms of Sec. 497-A Cr.PC for their release on bail in case they are arrested in case FIR No. 120/2018, Police Station, Sumbal. The pleas taken in this regard are that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5 had entered into marriage agreement and the same was solemnized for which reliance is placed on certain documents, copies of which are annexed with the petition. It is being also stated that in the earlier petition filed by petitioner No.1 and respondents No.5 bearing CRMC No. 368/2018, direction was passed for staying the operation of the FIR No. 120/2018 for commission of offences under Sec. 366/109 RPC. The averments in the said petition are that being major they had contracted marriage out of their own free will and choice but to the disliking of the parents of respondent No.5 herein (girl). It is also being pleaded that the police is harassing the family members of petitioner No.1 herein under the garb of the referred FIR, therefore seeks its quashment through the said petition. The allegation levelled against petitioner No.1 is that he has abducted respondent No.5 herein while as the fact is that she had out of her own free will and consent contracted marriage with petitioner No.1 herein.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Hussain, learned senior counsel for the petitioners.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, in order to substantiate his arguments that the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail in case of their arrest has taken reliance on some judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court including Gurbakash Singh Sikkia's case and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) SCC 730. In later case relevant text which is being related is as: