falsely implicated in the present case, it is next submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that when the informant was aware that his minor daughter was missing on 22.10.2021, why the present F.I.R. came to be instituted on 28.10.2021 i.e., after a delay of more than six days without any plausible explanation. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is also not named in the F.I.R. as such initially no aspersion or suspicion was even cast upon her, it is next submitted that the victim has come back and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that her mother had token loan of Rs.10,000/- from her neighbor and on account of said dispute, the son-in-law of the neighbor took her to her house and kept her for eight days and then left her to go back home, she had further stated that Chandan, Nawal and petitioner were also involved in taking her away. Learned counsel submits that from perusal of her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it would manifest that the same appears to be tutored and it does not inspire confidence as the victim does not even remotely suggest that she was misbehaved rather she has stated that she was kept in the house for eight days and then the accused persons left her, this amply demonstrates that for some ulterior reason, the victim was made to give the said tutored statement.
