A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, complicity of the accused, nature and gravity of offence, accusation made and coupled with the fact that admittedly the date of occurrence mentioned in the FIR is in between 01.01.2022 to 01.05.2023 as such there is huge delay in lodging of FIR, however neither in the FIR nor in the statements of the prosecutrix referred to above there is any explanation regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, by virtue of the law laid down by the Apex Court in P. Rajagopal (supra) prima facie the prosecution of the applicant itself cannot be maintained, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mandar Deepak Pawar (supra) in case of sexual assault based upon consensual relationship if there is delay in lodging of the FIR the same is fatal to the prosecution, admittedly on the date of lodging of FIR the prosecutrix was major, the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC has already been submitted, as such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant now stands crystalized, however in spite of above the learned A.G.A. nor the learned counsel for first informant could point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the course of trial, the clean antecedents of the applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, the prosecutrix is a willing and consenting party, up to this stage present case is a case of breach of promise and not false promise of marriage, therefore irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for first informant 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.
