Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact that the medical evidence does not support the ocular version of the occurrence inasmuch as the Doctor who examined the prosecutrix did not find any signs on her body so as to denote commission of deliberate sexual assault upon the prosecutrix, as per the statement of the prosecutrix she was having consentual relationship with the applicant, in the F.I.R. giving rise to present application, no allegations with regard to dislodging the modesty of the prosecutrix has been made, prosecutrix in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has supported the F.I.R., prosecutrix in her said statement has not come out with allegations that her modesty was dislodged by applicant, departure made by the prosecutrix in her subsequent statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. remains unexplaiend, as per medical opinion, the prosecutrix is aged about 16 years, the period of incarceration undergone, the clean antecedents of applicant, police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized, yet inspite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating custodial arrest of applicant during pendency of trial, therefore irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.
