the crime but the name of the appellant is missing therein. Scratch marks on her back as well as bite marks on the left breast of the victim has also been noticed at the time of her medical examination and she even to the Doctor has stated at the time of her medical examination that it was Omkar Verma and 3 others who had committed sexual assault on her and, thus, in this communication also, the victim has not taken the name of the appellant. The only person who has taken the name of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime is the husband of the victim who at the relevant point of time was present with the victim at the police station when the FIR was being lodged and it has been argued with considerable force that if the husband was in knowledge that the rape has also been committed by the appellant, he should have immediately taken the name of the appellant at the police station at the time of lodging of F.I.R. The appellant is languishing in jail in this case since 02.03.2024. Criminal history of one case alleged against the appellant has been explained. There is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the appellant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, a case for bail is emerging in favour of the appellant, however, the learned trial court appears to have committed an illegality, while rejecting the plea of bail of the appellant.
