Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for state, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that as per the High School Certificate, the prosecutrix was aged about 17 years, 3 months and 19 days on the date of occurrence, the prosecutrix is a willing and consenting party as per her statements under Sections 161/164 Cr. P. C., in spite of the fact that a period of one year and two months has rolled by from the date of submission of charge sheet, no witness of fact has been examined till date, since applicant is in custody, he cannot be said to be responsible in the progress of trial, applicant has also a right of speedy trial by virtue of law laid down by Supreme Court in Abdul Rahman Antulay and others (supra) , in spite of the fact that charge sheet has been submitted, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of the Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 Livelaw (S.C.) 373 (para 5), the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.
