gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that the prosecutrix was neither kidnapped nor abducted by the applicant, therefore, no offence under Section 366 IPC can be said to have been committed by the applicant, the prosecutrix is major, she is a willing and consenting party, the modesty of the prosecutrix was dislodged on 26.07.2023 for the first time, therefore, prima-facie, the allegation made in the statement of the prosecutrix that her modesty was dislodged on the false promise of marriage appears to be palpably false, 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. and the learned counsel representing first informant 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 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.
