(1.) The respondent arrested on 25.5.2010 moved an application for grant of bail before learned CJM Anantnag. The application for bail was rejected on 23.06.2010. His second bid to get enlarged on bail also failed on 21.7.2010. The respondent thereafter laid one more application after the interval of two days i.e. on 23.7.2010 before learned Sessions Judge, Anantnag. The application was allowed on 22.9.2010 and respondent admitted to bail subject to conditions laid down there.
(2.) The order of learned Sessions Judge, Anantnag, dated 22.9.2010 was assailed in the Criminal Revision registered as Criminal Revision 28/2010 before this Court. The Revision was allowed and the order of Sessions Judge Anantnag dated 22.9.2010 set aside. The respondent was directed to surrender before the learned Sessions Judge, Anantnag and on his surrender to be sent to judicial custody. This court while disposing of the Criminal Revision on 27.5.2011 concluded as under:
(3.) The petitioner undaunted by order dated 27.05.2011 filed yet another application for his enlargement on bail on 6.7.2011. The application was rejected on the ground that the ossification test of the prosecutrix was yet to be received. Learned Sessions Judge opined that there was no occasion to allow the application unless the ossification test of the prosecutrix was received. The trial court indirectly linked the fate of the respondent s bail application with the ossification test of the prosecutrix. Once the ossification test was received, the respondent again approached the trial court with an application for his admission to bail on 20.8.2011. Learned Sessions Judge, Anantnag noticing that the medical expert on the basis of the ossification test was of the opinion that the victim was 17/18 years of age on 09.8.2011 allowed the application and granted bail to the respondent on 30.8.2011 subject to the conditions laid down in the order.