After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, considering the fact that the victim in her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted the fact that she solemnized marriage with the applicant on 14.9.2019 in the temple and both were living as husband and wife and only due to family pressure as the applicant is not of her caste, the allegation of rape was levelled against the applicant and he was falsely implicated in the present case. The age of the victim as per her own statement and as per the opinion of the doctor is 16 years, so taking the benefit of two years on either side, the applicant appears to be major and she knew her consequences very well. The medical report does not support the allegation of rape as the doctor has opined that there is no external or internal injury found on the person of the victim nor there is any pregnancy report is also negative and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh(supra) and Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
