RAVINDRA SINGH, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Piyush Mittal alias Sonu with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 287 of 2007 under sections 376, 506 IPC P. S. Colonelganj district Allahabad. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Abhay Kumar Singh on 6. 9. 2006 at 6. 30 a. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred six or seven month prior the lodging of the FIR. The applicant and the co-accused Brijesh Kumar Prajapati are named in the FIR. It is alleged that the first informant is a Store Keeper at Ram Bagh Railway Station, on 5. 9. 2006, his daughter Km. Shikha alias Lali aged about 13 years was not feeling well, when she was asked about her problem, she disclosed in a weeping Condition that the applicant and co-accused Brijesh Kumar Prajapati alias Nanji alias Bhaiyaji, were committing rape with her for the last six of seven months by putting her in fear and terror. They threatened that in case she disclosed this fact, her father and mother shall be shot dead. According to the medical examination report no mark of injury was found. Hymen was old torn and healed and she was having pregnancy. She was aged about 18 years and no definite opinion about rape could be given. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded. She made allegation against the applicant and co-accused for committing rape with her. Her statement was also recorded under section 164 Cr. P. C. in which she made allegation against the applicant that she was caught hold and taken to his room where she was locked and at the gun point rape was committed with her. She was raped by other co-accused also. The applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad who rejected the same on 8. 3. 2007. Being aggrieved from the order dated 8. 3. 2007, the applicant applied for bail before this Court. 3. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava and Varun Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri S. K. Tyagi, learned Counsel for the complainant. 4. 3. 2007. Being aggrieved from the order dated 8. 3. 2007, the applicant applied for bail before this Court. 3. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava and Varun Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri S. K. Tyagi, learned Counsel for the complainant. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the FIR is too much delayed and the prosecutrix is a major girl, she was having love affairs with the applicant, her age is about 18 years, she was a consenting party and she never raised any objection consequently, she became pregnant but to save her face she concocted the present story by alleging that the rape was committed by the applicant and others co-accused persons under coercion. 5. In reply to the above condition it is submitted by the learned A. G. A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant that the applicant and other co-accused persons have committed rape with the prosecutrix at the gun point without her consent. The prosecutrix is a minor girl. According to the school register transfer certificate, her date of birth is 12. 12. 1993. At the time of the alleged incident, she was aged about 13 years, in such condition, even if the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix was consenting party, is accepted the offence under section 376 IPC is made out because the consent of a minor girl below 16 years has no importance. Therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and from the perusal of the record, it appears that in the present case, the allegation of committing rape is against the applicant and co-accused. The rape was committed with the prosecutrix for a period of six or seven months at the gun point putting the prosecutrix under fear and terror. According to the medical exclamation report, she was found pregnant and according to her school certificate, she was aged about 13 years at the time of the alleged incident, in such a situation it is established that the prosecutrix was definitely raped which resulted into her pregnancy and so far as the consent is concerned if the prosecutrix is under 16 years of age, it has no importance. In such case, the delay in lodging the FIR is a natural phenomenon. In the present case, the allegation of committing gang rape is against the applicant and other co-accused persons. 7. In view of the above discussion, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entailed for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected. Application Rejected. .