The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that though there is a consistent case of rape in the statements of the prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., but on a reading of the statements of the prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the latter being a more detailed statement, it is evident that it is a case of consent. Learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the fact that the prosecutrix travelled with the applicant from Ghaziabad to Kalihar by bus, and then by train to some other destination, reaching Haridwar on the following day. It is said that at Kalihar, they stayed in a room, and all during this while they were moving around, where she passed through busy public places, but did not call rescue. It is also said that they roamed about in Haridwar, where also she did not call rescue. It is said that in the account about travel by bus, in the submission of the learned counsel, that she was threatened at knife point by the applicant, but it is difficult to conceive how in a busy public place, a knife would quieten her into silence. It is further pointed out that at Haridwar, there was police checking going on, and, therefore, the applicant threw away the knife, and the threat ended. It is, in particular, pointed out that on seeing the police during the checking, the prosecutrix did not call rescue because the applicant had forbidden her. She proceeded with the applicant to Meerut, the same day, and they were apprehended on way. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix was a consenting party as she went along with the applicant to different stations, and now she has come come up with a story of rape, once she has been apprehended. It is, in particular, been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix is clearly a major going by her recorded date of birth in the High School Certificate, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure 5 at page 33 of the of the paper-book, which shows her date of birth as 08.08.1999, making her to be an all of 19 years on the date of occurrence. Learned counsel submits that looking to the fact that the prosecutrix is a major, and apparently it is a case of consent, there is no justification to detain the applicant in jail pending trial.
