Having heard the leaned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made, nature and gravity of offence and coupled with the fact that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC/164 CrPC has not supported the prosecution story, prima facie the allegations made in the F.I.R. are not established against the applicant, the prosecutrix is a willing and consenting party, the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with applicant as is established from the record, there being nothing on record to show that prosecutrix has initiated proceedings for cancellation of marriage, there is no evidence up to this stage to conclude that the date of birth of the prosecutrix as recorded in the school record is correct, the medical evidence does not support ocular version as the prosecutrix was not medically examined, the charge-sheet having been submitted therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant now stands crystalized, no such circumstance could be pointed out by the learned A.G.A. necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the course of trial, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one, the period of incarceration undergone, the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra 2023 Live Law (SC) 373 (paragraph 5) , but without making any comment on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.
