Honble SHETHNA, J.–Learned counsel Shri Kalla for the petitioner vehemently submitted that a false case under Sec .376 IPC is made out against the accused only because the accused did not pay Rs.500/- to the prosecutrix after the sexual intercourse with her. He submitted that the prosecutrix had gone on her own with the accused. Firstly she had taken juice and then she had gone on motor cycle with the accused to `Savariaji and saw movie, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had committed forcible rape. He also submitted that as per the FIR itself she had stated that her age is 19 years, thus she was major and it was a case of consent, but lateron tried to be converted for the offence u/Sec .376 IPC. (2). It is true that in FIR her age is mentioned as 19 years, but from the medical certificate it is clear that she was below 18 years. It must be stated that she is an illiterate girl belonging to Scheduled Caste and it may be that police might have mentioned her age as 19 years in the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix. Be that as it may. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that she was above 19 years and that she had gone on her own with the accused for moving around that does not mean that the accused was entitled to commit rape on her. The argument that accused did not pay Rs. 500/- after having sexual intercourse with her, therefore, complaint is filed cannot be accepted for the simple reason that no woman would like to file false complaint of rape only for the sake of Rs. 500/- and to ruin her entire life in future. Going through the averments made in FIR, I am fully satisfied that she had mentioned everything in FIR in a most natural way. (3). One more submission was made by the learned counsel Shri Kalla that accused is in jail since last 5 months,therefore, he should be released on bail. The mere fact that he is in jail since last 5 months is not sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, particularly when he is charged with the serious and henious offence of rape under Section 376 IPC. (4). The mere fact that he is in jail since last 5 months is not sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, particularly when he is charged with the serious and henious offence of rape under Section 376 IPC. (4). Before parting, I must state that I was compelled to give reasons as the matter was vehemently argued by the learned counsel and a reasoned order was invited. Therefore, I have given brief reasons, and refrained myself from elaborate discussion. It is also made clear that whatever observations made in the order would not come in the way of accused at the time of trial. It goes without saying that the trial Court has to decide the case on the evidence led before it. (5). With these observations, this petition is dismissed. (6). At this stage, a request was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused may be given liberty to file fresh bail application after the evidence of prosecutrix is recorded. It is always open to the accused to make any application at any stage before any Court for which no permission is required from this Court. He can always make another bail application after the evidence of prosecutrix is recorded. As and when such application is filed it shall be decided by the trial Court only in accordance with law.