has solemnized marriage with the applicant, therefore, the charge against applicant under section 376 IPC, and 3/4 POCSO Act is meaning less inasmuch as no deliberate act was committed by applicant for dislodging the modesty of the prosecutrix by committing sexual assault upon her. Ultimately, prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with applicant, which fact is clearly discernible from the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C. As such, no criminality, if any, stands washed of, though the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age on the date of her marriage, the marriage of the prosecutrix with the applicant shall not be void but voidable at the instance of prosecutrix alone by virtue of section 11 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, averments made in supplementary affidavit, wherein applicant is ready to discharge his duty as husband, in case applicant is enlarged on bail, a happy family shall stand broken, the period of incarceration undergone, the clean antecedents of applicant, police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized, yet inspite of above, learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing opposite parties- 2 and 4 could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating custodial arrest of applicant during pendency of trial, therefore irrespective of the objection raised by the learned A.G.A. 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.
