JUDGMENT :

MANISH MATHUR, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record.

2. Second bail application has been filed with first bail application having been rejected vide order dated 22.12.2021 by Hon. Ram Krishna Gautam, J. who has since demitted office and therefore the matter has been listed before this Court as per roster.

3. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

4. The applicant is involved in Case Crime No. 182 of 2021 under Section 376, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Faridpur, District Bareilly.

5. As per contents of F.I.R, the incident is said to have taken place on 20.04.2021 when the applicant is said to have committed rape upon wife of first informant.

6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and first bail application of applicant has been rejected primarily on the ground that prosecutrix in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the contents of F.I.R.

7. It is submitted that while rejecting the first bail application, this Court omitted to consider the medical report of prosecutrix indicating that there was no injuries on body of prosecutrix although the medical examination was conducted on the very next day of alleged incident. It is further submitted that during the course of trial, neither of the witnesses of fact as PW-1 and PW-2 has supported the prosecution version and were therefore declared hostile. Certified copy of their depositions are on record, while applicant is under incarceration since 23.04.2021 and only two prosecution witnesses have been examined till date.

8. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the fact situation.

9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Another, (2004) 7 SCC 528 while holding that a Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and that a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of merit need not be undertaken although there is need to indicate reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted. It has further been held that at the time of consideration of second or subsequent bail application, there is onus on the Court to consider the grounds on which earlier bail application had been rejected and it is only after such consideration if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then specific reason should be indicated why the subsequent bail application is being granted in spite of earlier rejection. The relevant paragraph is as follows:

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting ball should exercise its discretion in a Judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting ball; they are:

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(c) Prima-facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. [See Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singht and Puran vs. Rambilas]

12. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected there is a further onus on the court to consider the subse