161/164 CrPC has not supported the F.I.R., the prosecutrix is a willing and consenting party, as per the admitted case of the prosecutrix she herself accompanied the applicant, the prosecutrix has clearly and categorically stated that she has solemnized marriage with the applicant, from the aforesaid wedlock of the prosecutrix and the applicant a male child was born who is now said to be aged about one year, in view of above the criminality if any committed by the applicant stands washed of, though the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age on the date of marriage but simply on that account 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, 1955, no proceedings have been initiated by the prosecutrix for declaration of her marriage with the applicant as void, in spite of the fact that the charge-sheet has been submitted against applicant and therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized, yet the learned A.G.A. nor the learned counsel for first informant could point out any such incriminating circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (paragraph 5) , the clean antecedents of the applicant, the period of incarceration undergone therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail but, without making any comments on the merit of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.
