S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application for bail under section 439 Cr. P. C. after refusal\of the same by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir during pendency of investigation. ( 2 ) ON 6/5/1988 the information was lodged by the victim girl that in between December, 1987 and January, 1988 while the victim girl was a maid servant in the house of the accused petitioner she was compelled to have continuous cohabitation with assurance of marriage with her employer resulting in conception. On the fifth month of conception, she requested the gentlemen of the village to intervene in the matter so that the petitioner and the victim girl can get married. Conciliation having failed, information was lodged. ( 3 ) THE Investigating Officer while investigating the offence examined the victim girl under section 161 Cr. P. C. when she stated before the 1. 0. that on the assurance that accused would marry her, she gave consent for sexual intercourse. As there was no marriage in spite of conception information has been lodged for punishing the culprit. ( 4 ) MR. H. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that statement of the victim girl under section 161 Cr. P. C. prima facie indicates that there was consent and accordingly, the girl being aged about 29 years, he should be released on bail specially on account of the fact that the F. I. R. was lodged much after. Thus, the only point for consideration at this stage is whether there was prima facie consent. Permitting sexual intercourse being influenced by promise to marry as stated would not normally be treated as voluntary and it may amount to inducement. This would be a matter of inference. At this stage, I ought not to come to the conclusion either way since such a conclusion by itself is likely to prejudice the accused and the trial. Be that as it may, when maid servant alleges sexual cohabitation with the employer it cannot by itself be said that no offence is made out. In such circumstances, unless investigation is complete, I am not inclined to entertain this application at this state. Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move for bail after submission of final form in case a charge sheet is filed.