SINGH, V. J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the documents produced before the Court.
(2.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Kiran was a major on the date of the alleged incident and that she has been converted herself to Islam and married the petitioner and therefore, no offence is committed by the accused petitioner. Reliance has been placed on the affidavit of Kiran, attested by the Notary Public. There is nothing to show that the ceremony necessary for conversion to Islam has been gone in to by Kiran before the alleged marriage. The fact indicates that the ceremony as required under the Hindu Marriage Act, was not performed. From the facts of the case, it is proper to infer that the accused petitioner developed some intimacy with Kiran when she was a minor. Where a minor is seduced, misled and her consent is obtained, such consent cannot be said to be a consent in the eye of law, unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that after attaining the majority she reconsidered the matter and gave voluntary consent either for conversion to another religion or for marriage. Having regard to the nature of allegations made in the report and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not appear to be a fit case for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr. P. C. The bail application deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. .;