Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for state, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that the prosecutrix in her statements under Section 161/164 Cr. P. C. has not supported the F.I.R., to the contrary, the prosecutrix is a willing and consenting party, as such applicant has neither abducted nor kidnapped the prosecutrix, a such no offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC can be said to have been committed by applicant, the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with applicant, as such the criminality alleged against applicant stands washed off, though the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age on the date of her marriage with applicant yet, the marriage of the prosecutrix with the applicant 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, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, 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 for first informant in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.
