Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that order of the learned court below rejecting bail application of applicant-appellant is bad in law. It is next contended that the prosecutrix, as per her statement before the Magistrate, is aged about 24 years and she has disclosed her date of birth to be 02.08.1993. It is argued that the prosecutrix has lodged the first information report in order to harass and blackmail the appellant for the purpose of marrying her. In this behalf, he has submitted that the prosecutrix had already lodged a report in Delhi at Police Station Mukherji Nagar under Section 354 I.P.C. It is argued even from the first information report lodged in Delhi, prima facie, an offence under Section 354 I.P.C. is not made out and there was no allegation of any sexual assault or abuse by the appellant who was her teacher in math faculty. He further pointed out that subsequently, the prosecutrix lodged another first information report in Allahabad at Police Station Civil Lines that the appellant had promised to marry her and in February, 2017 the appellant had established physical relationship with her without her consent. The short submission by the learned counsel for the appellant is that if at all such incident was taken place in February, 2017, then certainly this fact should have been mentioned in the F.I.R. lodged by her on 13.7.2017 at P.S. Mukherji Nagar, Delhi. It is submitted that in fact, prosecutrix is a grown-up girl aged about 24 years and when she could not succeed in her evil design to persuade appellant to marry her, she falsely implicated the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that learned court below has also failed to consider that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
