Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He next submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., while in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has stated that the applicant and one Thakur Deen has forcibly taken her from the way and in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she did not know the applicant or any of the accused named by her. On being questioned by the Court as to how she has named the accused, she stated that just like that she had learnt the name of accused persons. On a careful perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it appears that she was informed by someone to name the applicant and other accused, on account of which the statement in itself is so cryptic and ambiguous on the basis of which a complicity of the applicant and other accused is not prima-facie established. Lastly, he contended that similarly placed co-accused Santu, who has named by the prosecutrix in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 11.1.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1450 of 2018. He further submits that the applicant is in custody since 20.6.2017 having no criminal antecedents. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
