therefore, there is no question of applying provisions of the said Act. The appellant was ready to marry the 2nd respondent, however, the 2nd respondent refused to marry the appellant. The 2nd respondent was consenting party to the alleged incident of rape, and therefore, no offence is made out under Section 376 of IPC. The investigation has already been completed and, therefore, there is no need to detain the appellant in jail. Respondent No. 2 used to extract money from the appellant. The Trial Court did not consider the statement of Ms. Prajakata Bharat, wherein she has categorically stated that the appellant and the 2nd respondent were happy when they met the said witness. The 2nd respondent is an educated lady and working as police constable and, therefore, she cannot allege that she does not know the effect of being party to the consensual relationship. The appellant is in jail for a considerable period and there are no chances of commencing the trial in near future. Learned counsel invites our attention to the grounds taken in the appeal memo, annexures thereto and submits that there is no substance in the prosecution case and, therefore, the appellant deserves to be released on bail, during the pendency of trial.
