The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evaluating the evidentiary value of the prosecutrix's statement for the purpose of granting bail, and the court's authority to take a different view from the trial court based on the evidence and circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 128/2022 for offences under Sections 366, 376 and 109 IPC. The case is stated to be pending before the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Poonch (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court), where the trial is going on.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that he was arrested on 19.05.2022 in a false and frivolous FIR and that presently he is facing trial before the trial court. According to the petitioner, the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded before the trial court during trial of the case and from her statement, it is clear that her version of the occurrence is unworthy of credit. The petitioner has further submitted that after recording of the statement of the prosecutrix, he had applied before the trial court for grant of bail but his application was rejected by the said court in terms of order dated 07.06.2023. It has been contended that the order of rejection of bail application of the petitioner has been passed by the trial court without correctly appreciating the material on record. The other ground urged by the petitioner is that he has to support his old and ailing parents and in his absence, it is becoming very difficult to take care of the needs of his parents. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court in the event, he is admitted to bail.

3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have contested the present bail application by filing objections thereto. In their objections, the respondents have narrated the prosecution version of the case and they have submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence, as such, he does not deserve the concession of bail. It has been further contended that the prosecutrix has clearly implicated the petitioner, while making her statement during trial of the case. Thus, involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime is prima facie, established.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents. I have also perused the evidence available on record. Before coming to the rival contentions of the parties, let me give a brief background of the prosecution case.

5. On 18.05.2022, the prosecutrix approached Police Station Surankote and submitted a written application alleging therein that her husband is presently working in Saudi Arabia as a labourer and when the petitioner came to know about it, he started harassing and threatening her, whereafter he committed rape upon her. It was further alleged in the application that the petitioner took away some golden ornaments and a cash amount of Rs 4.50 lacs from her and he also took some nude photographs of the prosecutrix, whereafter, the petitioner threatened her that if she disclosed the matter relating to rape to any one, he would make these photographs viral. As a result of this, the prosecutrix remained silent but on 18.05.2022 when she was proceeding to Allahi Public School at Surankote in order to drop her children to the School, the petitioner kidnapped her with the aide and assistance of other persons named in the complaint. When they reached at Potha Bypass, she started crying and some locals came on spot, stopped the vehicle. In this manner, the prosecutrix was saved from the clutches of the accused.

6. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 128/2022 for offences under Sections 366 and 109 IPC was registered and investigation of the case was started. During investigation of the case, statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. was recorded and statements of other witnesses were also recorded. Call data records of mobile phones of the prosecutrix and the petitioner were also obtained. After investigation of the case, offence under Sections 366 and 376 IPC were fou