The court's decision was influenced by the support of the prosecutrix's statements and her pregnancy as per the medical report in denying the bail application.

JUDGMENT

Devendra Kachhawaha, J. - The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.61/2022, Police Station Reserve Centre Hiranmagri, District Udaipur, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 370-a and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard and considered arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that allegation of rape has not been levelled against the petitioner; petitioner is not named in the FIR; prosecutrix 'P' has left her home on her own will; prosecutrix is a 30 years old mature lady; as per rejection order itself, at the time of medical, prosecutrix is pregnant having a foetus of Vijay @ Pappu; petitioner is behind the bars since 05.02.2022 respectively; as per para 10 of the rejection order, no other case is registered against the petitioner; and trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has fervently and vehemently opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated that during the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has supported the story of prosecution and stated that she was sold by Chhotu and Bhagwati Lal to Sanjay, thereafter, she was sold to Pintu and she was kept for ten days and thereafter, sold to Raju; specific allegation of rape was made against Vijay @ Pappu and Raju. Learned Public Prosecutor further alleged that prosecutrix was raped by Chhotu Lal and Bhagwati Lal also.

5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the facts that prosecutrix has supported the story of prosecution recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; as per medical report, prosecutrix is three months pregnant; simply on the ground that FIR was filed after a delay, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner at this stage.

6. accordingly, the bail application preferred by the petitioner, Bhagawati Lal S/o Shri Bheru Lal Sharma, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is free to file a fresh bail application on behalf of the petitioner after filing of the charge-sheet.