3.Perusal of the FIR would show that the prosecutrix is major.
Though she says that she was taken by the main accused and co-accused
under the pretext that the health of her grandfather is not good, yet it
can be seen that they had gone to a different place than the place where
her grandfather was. They went on motorcycle. As regards applicant
No.1 is concerned, it is stated that he had taken the
informant/prosecutrix along with accused No.1 Tejas around 9.00 to
10.00 a.m. on 23.12.2021 in car and left them to Jalna. The prosecution
case is not clear enough in saying that applicant No.1 had the
knowledge that the girl was abducted. Further, applicant No.2 is the
paternal aunt of accused No.1 – Tejas. According to the prosecutrix,
accused No.1 had taken her to applicant No.2 around 7.00 p.m. at
Parbhani. Applicant No.2 had taken them to one Anganwadi Sevika and
they both had stayed at night time in the house of said Anganwadi
Sevika. As regards that Anganwadi Sevika is concerned, the prosecutrix
says that she was knowing that lady. But then why she has not disclosed
that she was abducted and brought forcibly there by accused No.1 is a
question. There appears that the girl had voluntarily eloped with
accused No.1. This Court has granted anticipatory bail to the co-accused
persons in ABA Nos.101 of 2022 and 104 of 2022 on 09.02.2022. No
doubt, the role of each of the accused was different, but they are not the
