ORDER : G.R. UDHWANI, J. 1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for bail in connection with the I-CR No. 9 of 2017 registered with GIDC Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 452, 323, 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned advocate, for the applicant and learned APP, for the respondent-State. 3. The allegation against the applicant is that of having entered forcibly into the house of the complainant in the midnight on 27.1.2017 when she was alone, with two other persons and she was tied and gagged and was given a slap while committing a forcible intercourse with her. The prosecutrix could recognise the accused by his voice as he was known to her. According to the case of the prosecutrix in the complaint and the version given by her before the doctor that initially she treated him as her brother, however, in the year 2015, he committed rape on her. It also appears from the complaint that she had given a sum of more than Rs. 7.00 lacs to the accused from time to time as he was in need of the same, and since he did not repay her, she made a complaint to the various authorities from time to time. It is stated in the complaint by the victim that, in order to pressurize her or dissuade her from recovering the said huge amount, the accused in order to show his might has committed the offence against her. During the commission of offence the accused person-applicant uttered some words wherefrom in the midnight during the darkness she could recognise the speaker as accused Tinabhai Rabari. 4. The argument is that in the year 2015 when allegedly rape was committed no complaint was filed by her and that there were monetary transactions between the two and therefore her version should not be believed. It is also argued that the story of the prosecutrix that after commission of the offence the accused persons locked the house from the outside also should not be believed in absence of the supporting FSL report evidencing breaking of lock. 5. The fact that she was tied and gagged is supported by the independent witnesses who freed her after breaking open the lock of the house. 5. The fact that she was tied and gagged is supported by the independent witnesses who freed her after breaking open the lock of the house. It is true that the FSL report does not point out that the lock was broken but that fact by itself would not nullify the statement of the victim given in the FIR as well as before the doctor. It is also argued that no injury was suffered by the victim and therefore the medical report of the blood and semen does not match. This Court would not appreciate the evidence in detail at this stage. Suffice it to say that prima facie the case for trial of heinous offence is made out against the applicant, and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail. The application therefore fails and is rejected. Rule is discharged.