LAVKUSH GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix is a consenting party; in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has stated that she left with the applicant on 21.03.2020 and went to Delhi where both of them stayed in a room and thereafter they married and were living like husband and wife, however, while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has changed the version and made improvement and stated that due to threat extended by the applicant she married to him. As per opinion of Chief Medical Officer, Ayodhya, the prosecutrix is aged about 17 years. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that two years of benefit on either side can be given in favour of the accused-applicant. The informant is father of the prosecutrix who was not happy with the marriage of the applicant with her daughter against his will. As per the ration card of the prosecutrix, her age is about 20 years. Copy of ration card is on record. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.06.2020 without having any previous criminal antecedents.

(3.) It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.