AYYANAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is seeking regular bail. He is stated to be in judicial custody since 22.6.2012. FIR has been registered under Sections 363/376 of the IPC on the complaint of one 'K'. She has been examined in the Court. In fact the evidence of the prosecution in the trial court is nearly completed. The version of the prosecutrix on oath is that she had married accused and thereafter the accused had established physical relation with her. In one part of her cross-examination she admitted that the accused had refused to take her but when she told him that she would die accordingly they had eloped. Needless to state that this application is opposed by the learned APP for the State who points out that the victim was a minor and on the date of the offence she was just 14 years plus. Her consent would be no consent in the eye of law. The prosecutrix as per her version on oath was stated to be 15 years of age. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the ossification report which has been filed by investigation officer has reflected the age of the victim between 14.5 to 15.8 years and benefit of 2 years is granted on either side the victim would be a major.

(2.) Without delving any further into the merits of the controversy and making it clear that this order would not have reflected anything on the merits which would affect the adjudication of the case on merits, petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the trial court with condition that he will continue to appear before the trial court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing.