JUDGMENT : 1. This application has been filed u/s 498 Cr.PC for admitting the petitioner to bail in F.I.R No. 66/2018, registered at Police Station, Rajpora, Pulwama, for the offences punishable u/s 376 & 506 RPC. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 14-09-2018 in the said FIR and the Challan has been presented on 12-11-2018 before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama, and the same was committed for trial to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pulwama. 2. It is further averred in the application that this Hon’ble Court, while entertaining the petition filed by the petitioner u/s 561-A, bearing No. CRMC 457/2018, stayed the proceedings vide order dated 03-12-2018. It is stated that in view of the protraction of proceedings coupled with the incarceration of the petitioner and non-availability of the Presiding Officer in the Court below on account of his leave for two weeks, indulgence of this Court is sought for consideration of the bail application. 3. The applicant has further stated that the allegation levelled in the impugned FIR against him is that he has cheated the prosecutrix, who is 29 years of age, by breaking the promise of marrying her after consensual physical intimacy. The prosecutrix, being major, has succeeded, by police padding, to falsely implicate the petitioner. The material produced in this regard does not corroborate with the allegations. The petitioner has further stated that the FIR has been registered after a period of ten days from the date of alleged occurrence, which is shown to be 30-07-2018. Two more occurrences on the dates, viz. 16-06-2018 & 25-06-2018, have been investigated disclosing the offence u/s 376 RPC. The investigating agency has registered the case for delayed occurrence and the explanation tendered by the prosecutrix is without any credibility. 4. It is further submitted that because of no ocular or medical evidence to substantiate the claim of violence against the prosecutrix by the petitioner, the institution and commencement of proceedings, that too, where there are no prospects of conviction, the trial has been stayed. It is further pleaded that due to the extraneous considerations and misuse of the power of the police and abuse of process of law, the provisions of the 498 Cr.PC for grant of bail are attracted. It is further pleaded that due to the extraneous considerations and misuse of the power of the police and abuse of process of law, the provisions of the 498 Cr.PC for grant of bail are attracted. Further the allegations in the FIR do not disclose the offence u/s 376 RPC and it best constitutes breach of promise to marry. It is also not shown that the consent has been obtained by force. No material whatsoever collected by the investigating agency connects the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence. 5. It is further pleaded that the case has been conducted by the Dy. SP, Pulwama, whereas the occurrence has taken place at Srinagar. The investigation of the case is most cryptic and without jurisdiction and cannot be countenanced in law. The petitioner has further stated that the investigation has been concluded and there being no chance of tampering with the evidence, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. It is further pleaded that the investigating agency has recorded two statements from the prosecutrix on two different date’s u/s 164-A Cr.PC. The first one, which has been recorded on 06-09-2018 is sought to be supplemented by the statement recorded on 03-10-2018 rendering the credibility of both the statements doubtful. These statements, recorded u/s 164-A Cr.PC, are not admissible in evidence and are liable to be discarded. Besides there are no ingredients in the statements made by the prosecutrix which constitute offence u/s 376 RPC. In the end, it is prayed that the petitioner be admitted to bail in F.I.R No. 66/2018, registered at police station, Rajpora, Pulwama. To support the contention pleaded in the petition, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the apex Court rendered in case Pradeep Kumar versus State of Bihar (2007)7 SCC 413 ; K.P. Thimapa Gowda versus State of Karnataka (2011) 14 SCC 475 ; State of Utter Pradesh versus Naushad (2013) 16 SCC 651 & judgement of this Court, incidentally of which I am the scribe, in CRMC 512/2017 titled Sunil Kumar versus State of J&K decided on 14-12-2018. 6. The respondent – State has filed the Status Report, wherein it has been stated the police Station Rajpora, Pulwama, received a complaint of Mst. Tasleema, endorsed to them by the DPO, Pulwama. 6. The respondent – State has filed the Status Report, wherein it has been stated the police Station Rajpora, Pulwama, received a complaint of Mst. Tasleema, endorsed to them by the DPO, Pulwama. Perusal of the complaint revealed that one Tariq Ahmad Dar R/O Nikas Pulwama, had met the complainant some time back and after developing intimate relationship, promised to marry her. The promise was never fulfilled even after multiple intimate meetings with the accused. Finally, the complainant approached the family members of the accused and narrated the entire story to them. They, however, got annoyed and the brother of the accused locked the complainant in a room and beat her besides threatening her of dire consequences. She was then asked by the family members of the accused to approach the accused, who was residing in a rental accommodation in Hotel Grand Plaza at Srinagar. After meeting the accused in the said hotel, he again committed the complainant to the sexual intercourse against her will. 7. The respondent – State has further stated that the case came to be registered in police Station Rajpora, Pulwama, on 08-08-2018 and the investigation of the case was entrusted to Dy.SP, HQ, Pulwama. After an on spot inspection, the Investigating Officer took the complainant to the hospital for medical examination and the medical tests substantiated that the sexual intercourse has actually taken place and, therefore, offence u/s 376 RPC came to be established. Accordingly, the statement u/s 161 Cr.PC and 164 Cr.PC were recorded. The Investigating Officer has further established that the accused has committed the offence of sexual intercourse with the complainant against her will and wish. He has obtained their call details and the investigation of the case has been closed and admitted. It is further stated that insofar as the delay in filing of the FIR, as contended by the petitioner, is concerned, the apex Court of the country, in a catenae of judgements, has held that the delay in lodging of an FIR in such type of cases, may not be taken seriously by the Courts, keeping in view the character and reputation of the prosecutrix and her family in the society. 8. I have considered the rival contentions of parties. 9. Rape is a crime against one’s mind, psyche and reputation. 8. I have considered the rival contentions of parties. 9. Rape is a crime against one’s mind, psyche and reputation. Rape leaves a permanent scar on the life of the victim and it becomes horrendous for the victim of rape to lead a dignified and well respected life in the society. It is very unfortunate that there is a high increase in the rape instances and ravenous maniacs are not even sparing the girls of a very tender age. Some of the recent rape cases have been so horrifying that the entire nation protested to condemn these barbaric acts and raised a voice to curb the said menace by inflicting more severe punishment. The Government also promptly appointed Justice J.S. Verma Committee to review laws on crimes against women, which recommended certain dramatic changes in the Criminal law relating to offences against women. 10. Undoubtedly there is a manifold increase in the crime concerning rapes, but all the rape cases which are filed have their own individual story and factual matrix. While most of the cases may be genuine, wherein the girl is a victim of this horrifying crime, or has been forced, blackmailed, threatened to enter into physical relationship with a male on the false pretext of marriage with the sole intent to physically exploit the girl but there may be cases where both persons out of their own will and choice, develop a physical relationship. make mockery of the sacred institution of marriage but also inflate the statistics of rape cases which further deprecates our own society. 11. Section 497-C is the newly inserted Section in the Code of Criminal Procedure in terms of Amendment Act, 2013. 497-C. Special provision regarding bail in certain offences against women etc. make mockery of the sacred institution of marriage but also inflate the statistics of rape cases which further deprecates our own society. 11. Section 497-C is the newly inserted Section in the Code of Criminal Procedure in terms of Amendment Act, 2013. 497-C. Special provision regarding bail in certain offences against women etc. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code no person accused of an offence punishable under section 304-B, 326A, 370, 376, 376A, 376C, 376D or 376E of Ranbir Penal Code, shall if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release:— Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. (2) ……………………. (3) …………………….” 12. In present case, there is clear cut allegations against the petitioner, that on 30.7.2018 he took the victim in rental accommodation in Hotel grand plaza Srinagar and committed rape on her; the statement of victim has been recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C; victim has been checked by board of doctors; investigation has been culminated into filing of challan before Additional Sessions judge, Pulwama. Petitioner without approaching the trial court has filed present petition for bail. Judicial propriety demands that accused petitioner should approach to trial court at first instance, who has already seized of matter. Counsel for petitioner apprehends that due order of stay of proceeding passed in CRMC 457/2018 on 3.12.2018 trial court will not hear the bail application. This apprehension is not tenable as stay of trial cannot come in way for trial court to decide the bail on its own merits. 13. Hence this petition is disposed of with direction to petitioner to approach before trial court and file a fresh petition for bail; if any such application is filed before the trial court shall decide the same on its merits. The pendency of CRMC and stay granted will not come in way, while deciding the said petition. CRMC 457/2018 be segregated and shall be listed on due date.