A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that he prosecutrix in her statements under Sections 161/164 Cr.P.C. has not supported the FIR, the prosecutrix is a willing and consenting party, the prosecutrix remained with the applicant for almost 5 months at different places, she has solemnized marriage with the applicant, as such, prima-facie, no offence as complained of can be said to have been committed by applicant, though the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age on the date of marriage yet the marriage of the prosecutrix with the appliant 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, up to this stage, no proceedings have been initiated by the prosecutrix for declaration of her marriage with the applicant as void, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, 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 in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. 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. and the learned counsel representing first informant 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.
