Shri Kant Tripathi, J. - (1.) WRITTEN objection filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the judgment and order dated 25.01.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No. 3, Ghazipur in S.T. No. 340 of 2008 (State Vs. Yahiya Khan). Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according to the medical report the age of the prosecutrix was 18 -20 years and there was no reasonable basis to show as to how the age was recorded in the school record. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial court has already acquitted the appellant under section 363, 366 I.P.C. The prosecutrix remained in the company of the appellant for about six days and travelled with him upto Kolkata. In this view of the matter, the prosecutrix was a consenting party. It was further submitted that the appellant was on bail during the trial and never abused the same and was in jail from 25.01.2011. It was further contended that in case the appellant was not released on bail, the appeal would, in due course, become infructuous as there was no prospect of the appeal being heard in near future due to heavy dockets.
(3.) IN my opinion, prima facie, the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants have substance, therefore, it is just and expedient to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant.;