VIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner through Video Conferencing as well as learned Public Prosecutor, present in the Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecutrix was a major girl and she on her own had married with the present petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that an affidavit to the effect of getting married on 22.10.2019 was also filed before the Police Authorities while conducting investigation. Learned counsel further submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. further reveals that she on her own had accompanied the present petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the Police during investigation has found that the prosecutrix was not forced to marry the present petitioner. Learned counsel has also referred to 'Exception' appended to Section 375 of IPC and submits that since the prosecutrix is married to the present petitioner and her status is of a wife and having attained age of 15 years, no offence of rape is said to have been committed. Learned counsel submitted that the Police has already filed challan and investigation has been completed and the petitioner is in custody since 08.11.2019.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the date of birth of the prosecutrix as per the school certificate is 07.08.2003 and prosecutrix was not major at the relevant time and as such the petitioner may not be released on bail.