witnesses of fact who have deposed before court below i.e. the prosecutrix and the first informant have admitted in their cross examination that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is the same date of birth which is recorded in the institution first attended by her i.e. 26.10.2005, as such, the prosecutrix was aged about 16 years, 6 months and 3 days on the date of occurrence, prima-facie, the medical evidence does not support the prosecution story regarding commission of deliberate and forceful sexual assault upon the prosecutrix, since the prosecutrix was above 16 years of age on the date of occurrence, therefore, the maximum sentence that can be awarded is 10 years and not 20 years, in view of above, the rigours of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of X (Minor) (Supra) are not attracted, the prosecutrix and the applicant are related to each other, in view of above, the prosecutrix appears to be a willing and consenting party, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, considering the age of the prosecutrix, 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 prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A., the learned counsel representing first informant and the learned counsel representing opposite party 2 in opposition to the present application for bail but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
