JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SEKHRI, J.

01. Since both the petitions arise out of same FIR No.0079/2025, they are being disposed of by virtue of this common judgment.

02. Petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 528 BNS, for the quashment of FIR No.0079/2025, primarily on the ground of false implication and seeks enlargement on bail.

03. Before a closure look at the grounds urged in the memo of petitions, it shall be expedient to have an overview of the background facts.

04. The factual matrix of the prosecution story is that on 16.10.2025, the private respondent (the prosecutrix) at about 15.00 hours lodged a written complaint dated 14.10.2025 alleging inter alia that on 13.10.2025, while she was working in her cosmetic shop at Sangaldan, the accused/petitioner came there, started quarrelling using abusive language and attempted to assault her. He passed derogatory remarks and attempted to outrage her modesty. The complainant also alleged that earlier on 01.10.2025, the accused had locked and confined her in her shop until he unlocked the shop after sometime. On the receipt of this report, impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioner.

05. During investigation, the investigating agency besides other legal formalities, got statement of the prosecutrix recorded before concerned Magistrate on 17.10.2025 under Section 183 BNSS.

06. The prosecutrix stated that she has been knowing the petitioner/accused since 2019 as her former employer. She worked in his shop upto 2023. Later she established her own shop in the building of one Mohd. Saleem. It was alleged by the prosecutrix that in 2020, petitioner raped her by wrongfully confining her inside his shop. He continued to ravish her till 2023 and threatened her with dire consequences, should she disclose the incident to anybody. He also attempted to silence her by offering a sum of Rs. 20.00 lacs and a cosmetic shop. She went on to allege that petitioner even thereafter on the pretext of assisting her in business made an attempt to rape her once in the year 2024 and most recently on 13.10.2025. The prosecutrix revealed that on 14.10.2025, the petitioner accompanied by his wife, sister and sister-in-law came to her shop and in furtherance of common criminal intention, they dragged her and assaulted her with fists, kicks and blows. It was mentioned by the prosecutrix in her statement that she approached Police Post Sangaldan with a written complaint on 14.10.2025, but she narrated about the events of 13.10.2025 only because complaint was drafted on the same day and she mentioned about the sexual assault only to preserve social dignity and due to the fear of accused.

07. On the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Agency and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded during investigation, the investigating agency has concluded that offences under Sections 376 IPC, 74/127 (2), 115 (2), 351 (3), 352 and 3(5) BNS were established against the petitioner.

08. The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned FIR, primarily on the ground that allegations contained therein even if taken in entirety on face value would not disclose the commission of any offence, muchless offence under Section 376 IPC.

09. Heard arguments and perused the record.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that subsequent narration of the prosecutrix in her statement recorded during investigation is an afterthought to frame the petitioner in a false case only after he came to be admitted to interim anticipatory bail on 17.10.2025 and an order of temporary injunction passed by a civil Court on 18.10.2025. According to the petitioner, the belated allegations of the prosecutrix in her statement recorded during investigation were tailored to implicate the petitioner to wreck vengeance.

11. Learned Government counsel on the other hand, has defended the impugned FIR and opposed the bail plea on the ground of gravity of the charge.

12. It is well settled in law that First Information Repo