informant/prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., since the delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained, the prosecution of the applicant itself prima-facie cannot be maintained, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in P. Rajagopal And Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866 (paragraph 8), 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, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), 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.
