Court Legal Services Committee, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that though the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C., before the Doctor and under Section 164 Cr. P. C. has fully supported the F.I.R., since the finding as per the medical opinion that the prosecutrix was in family way, on the date of occurrence, as per the medical opinion, the age of the foetus was reported to be 14 weeks and 3 days, though the prosecutrix is a young unmarried girtl, how the said circumstance came into existence remains unexplained by the prosecutrix, in view of the clinching medical evidence, the possibility of false implication of the applicant in the crime in question cannot be ruled out, as per the F.S.L. report, no spermatozoa was found on the samples/slides, on the same set of evidence and same set of fact, two of the named accused has been exculpated, whereas two of the named accused have been charge sheeted which fact could not be explained by the learned A.G.A., clean antecedents of applicants, period of incarceration undergone, the police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. has already been submitted therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecutrix against applicants has been crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicants during the pendency of trial, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, the applicants have made out a case for bail.
