facie no offence under Section 363, 366 I.P.C. is made out against applicant, the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with applicant, in view of above, no offence under Section 376 I.PC, Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act can be said to have been committed by applicant, even though the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age, on the date of her marriage with applicant but simply on that ground the marriage of the prosecutrix with the applicant shall not be void but voidable at the instance of the prosecutrix alone by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 11 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, however upto this stage, no proceedings have been initiated by the prosecutrix for declaration of her marriage with the applicant as void, as per medical opinion the prosecutrix is aged about 18 years, the police report (chargesheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, therefore, the entire evidence sought to relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised, 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 applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of apex Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5) the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
