Honble SHETHNA, J.–Learned counsel Shri Bora for the petitioner-accused vehemently submitted that there is a gross delay of 8 days in filing F.I.R. He submitted that by paying money to the parents of the prosecutrix the accused got married with her. But, later on, her mother filed false complaint against him. He further submitted that the mother of the prosecutrix herself is staying separately from her husband. He also submitted that the prosecutrix was not minor but she was major aged about 20. She left her house on her own only with a view to marry with the accused and, in fact, as per the complaint filed by her on 28.2.98 before the Court of Gharsana, it is clear that she got married with the accused. He further submitted that the prosecutrix moved with the accused from place to place. They went from Anopgarh to Gharsana and from Gharsana to Ludhiana and for nearly one and a half months she did not make any complaint about the rape committed on her or of kidnapping. He submitted that for the first time when her complaint was registered before the Court, at the instance of her mother, she gave false statement against the accused. He, therefore, submitted that it is a fit case in which this Court should release the accused on bail. (2). Delay of 8 days in filing the F.I.R. is no delay at all in such type of cases. Whether the prosecutrix was major or minor that question cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage. It is a matter of evidence which must be left to the trial Court and it is too early for this Court to express any opinion. However, this Court has to proceed on the assumption that she was a minor which fact is also corroborated by the medical evidence, which shows that she would be about 14 to 16 years, of age. Consent of parents regarding marriage also cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage. All other contentions raised by Mr. Bora cannot be decided at this stage. Offence under Section 376, 366 read with 120-B, I.P.C. are of very serious na- nature. Age of the prosecutrix was also hardly 14 to 16 yrs. therefore, there was har- dly any occasion for her to oppose the accused. All other contentions raised by Mr. Bora cannot be decided at this stage. Offence under Section 376, 366 read with 120-B, I.P.C. are of very serious na- nature. Age of the prosecutrix was also hardly 14 to 16 yrs. therefore, there was har- dly any occasion for her to oppose the accused. It prima facie appears that the accused took her from place to place and went on committing rape. Looking to her tender age it is obvious that she would not be allowed to seek any help from any quarter. These type of cases are increasing which causes great alarm. Under the circumstances, bail is a rule, but this is an exceptional case where the accused should be denied bail. In my opinion, the learned Judge has also rightly rejected the bail application of the accused. (3). In view of the above discussion, I do not see any merit or substance in this bail petition which fails and is hereby dismissed.