Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact that first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court on the statement made by learned A.G.A. that since applicant is a married man, therefore, the promise of marriage so extended by applicant to prosecutrix is false from the inception inasmuch as no decree of divorce was obtained by applicant. However, the aforesaid recital in the earlier bail order has been contradicted by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the averments made in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 15 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Subsequently, the prosecutrix/first informant has herself filed an application under section 12 of the of Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act, 2005, wherein she has stated that she has solemnized love marriage with applicant, therefore in view of above, prosecutrix is the wife of applicant and consequently, the allegations made in the F.I.R. are itself false and contradictory to the averments made in the application under section 12 of the Act, 2005, the prosecutrix is thus herself not clear qua the prosecution story which she wants to establish against applicant, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of
