JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J.(Oral)-The petitioner had also tried to seek bail earlier and his request was disallowed vide judgment passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No.136 of 2010 decided on 24th February, 2010, on the story, which was projected in the application itself. Now this is a second round that the petitioner is trying to seek the bail for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station, Palampur, in terms of FIR No.170 of 2009 dated 19th June, 2009 for allegedly committing rape and outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix, a foreign national. He was arrested and his bail was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala. 2. Notice of this application was taken by the respondent. Report has been filed and the matter finally heard. 3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 18th June, 2009 at about 7.00 p.m. the prosecutrix was waiting for a taxi to return to a guest house (Index House) where she was staying. She engaged the taxi of the petitioner and asked him to drop at the above place. Sunil Kumar co-accused was also sitting in that taxi. She boarded the taxi and drove off and stopped near a liquor vend. The petitioner got down. She tried to de-board it, but the door was locked. The petitioner bought beer, re-entered taxi and offered beer to her. Initially, she showed some reluctance but on his further insistence she accepted the offer. Thereafter the taxi was taken towards a Café. The petitioner started taking liberties and pressed her breast, but she resisted. She was de-boarded, thereafter taken to the bushes nearby and was sexually assaulted despite her resistance. Then left at the guest house where she narrated the entire incident to its Incharge and the report was lodged with the police. She identified both of them. The prosecutrix was medically examined. The petitioner and Sunil, his co-accused, were arrested. 4. On the statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the police, the learned trial Court prima facie opined that it was a case of rape and outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix, a foreigner and the defence of consent as projected by the learned Counsel for the petitioner requires determination during the trial. 5. 4. On the statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the police, the learned trial Court prima facie opined that it was a case of rape and outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix, a foreigner and the defence of consent as projected by the learned Counsel for the petitioner requires determination during the trial. 5. Prima facie, I find that it is not a case of consent, more specifically, when she reported the matter to the Incharge of the guest house where she was staying and then to the police and identified the assailants. From the date of rejection of his application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned trial Court till date, there is no change in circumstances even now. 6. Therefore, against above background, the petitioner has no case. Therefore, this petition is also dismissed.