The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of evidence, including physical evidence and contradictions in the statements, in determining the grant of bail in a case involving serious allegations such as rape.

1. By this common order, I shall dispose of the petitions filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), whereby the petitioners seek grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 167/2015 under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station Sabzi Mandi, New Delhi.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.03.2015 at about 12:00 a.m., accused Vipin, a friend of the complainant, called her at his Dhaba and when she reached, she found that accused Vipin and co-accused/Maonj@Tinky were having liquor in their Accent Car No. DL 5CB 5691. The complainant alleged that both accused persons made her consume beer and while she was under the influence of beer, they made her sit in the car and took her to Rajpura Gur Mandi; that they made her drink whisky fraudulently and while she was intoxicated, the accused persons committed rape on her; that when she regained consciousness, a scuffle took place between her and the accused persons during which her bangles fell in their car; that thereafter accused persons fled away as she raised alarm; that then she went to the house of accused Maonj@Tinky and enquired about the accused persons but did not find them there; that thereafter she returned to her house and slept; that in the evening of 30.05.2015, she went to the dhaba of accused Vipin and made a PCR call whereafter both the accused persons were subsequently arrested.

3. Mr. Sachin Puri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/Vipin contended that the subject FIR is nothing but a tool manufactured by the prosecutrix to implicate the accused persons in a false case in order to extort money from them; that the prosecutrix is habitual of filing false complaints as there is another FIR No. 192/2014 under Section 376G IPC registered at P.S. Ranjit Nagar, Delhi on her complaint wherein the allegation are identical to those made in the subject FIR; that to disprove the version of the prosecutrix, a CD containing the conversations between prosecutrix and the mother of the accused, wherein the prosecutrix was demanding money, has been placed on record; that the said CD was found genuine upon FSL examination; that, anticipatory bail was granted to both the accused persons by the Trial Court vide order dated. 23.11.2016; that the conduct of the prosecutrix of not approaching the police soon after the incident does not inspire confidence and moreover her visiting to Tihar Jail to meet petitioner/Vipin on three occasions i.e. 28.05.2015, 10.09.2015 and 17.09.2015 for settling the case subject to fulfillment of her demands, casts serious doubt on genuineness of her allegations; that there are several contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix at different places and before different authorities with respect to the fact that whether she was conscious or not, how much alcohol she consumed, her address, how she raised the alarm, how she managed to escape etc.; that neither blood stains nor semen stains could be detected on any of the articles from the vehicle; that there is no injury on the person of the prosecutrix and incase this incident did take place she was a consenting party; that the petitioner/Vipin lost his father due to societal ostracization and presently his mother is suffering from various old age ailments without anyone to look after her; that the prosecution has no private witnesses which negates the possibility of tampering with the evidence; that the petitioner/Vipin is ready to give surety for securing his presence before the Trial Court and thus, should be granted bail.

4. Adopting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner/Vipin, Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/Manoj @ Tinky further contended that the entire case of the prosecution is concocted as there is an unexplained delay of approximately 17 hours in lodging the complaint; that during her examination before the Metropol