ORDER : Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. 1. The applicant-Zabeer Hussain Shah, who is an under trial accused in a case FIR No. 12/2017 dated 25.03.2017 registered with Women Police Station, Rajouri for commission of offences under Sections 376/363/109 RPC pending before the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri, has filed the present application for grant of bail. 2. In the application, it is stated that police has presented the challan vide Final Report/Charge Sheet No. 31/2017 dated 28.09.2017 before the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri and arrayed 14 witnesses and out of them statement of 05 witnesses including the prosecutrix has been recorded and prosecutrix during the examination has stated nothing against the applicant and that whatever has been stated by the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence of the court. It is stated that the prosecutrix in her statement has categorically stated that there is land dispute between the family of the applicant and her family, and the entire prosecution story is based on surmises and conjectures. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that on 04.08.2018 applicant moved an application for grant of bail before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri, however the same has been dismissed on 22.10.2018. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2001 AIR (SC) 1444, Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. N.C.T., Delhi and another; 2012 (1) SCC (Cri) 26, Sanjay Chandra vs. CBL Reliance is also placed on the judgments of this Court bearing BA No. 41/2017, Rattan Singh vs. State of J&K, decided on 23.08.2017; BA No. 12/2017, Maj. Anoop Kumar vs. State of J&K, decided on 23.02.2017; BA No. 66/2016, Jatinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of J&K, decided on 17.03.2017; and BA No. 147/2017, Mohd. Shabir vs. State and Ors., decided on 12.10.2017. 5. Status report has been filed by respondents, wherein it has been stated that on 25.03.2017, complainant, namely, Abdul Aziz S/o. Mohd. Din R/o. Dhangri, Tehsil & District Rajouri, lodged a written report at Women Police Station, Rajouri against Zabir Hussain Shah, Zaheer Hussain Shah, Talib Husain Shah and Channa Bi. In the complaint, complainant has alleged that his granddaughter, namely, Tasalat Kouser is missing since 11.03.2017 and her missing report was entered in daily diary of Women Police Station, Rajouri on 15.03.2017. In the complaint, complainant has alleged that his granddaughter, namely, Tasalat Kouser is missing since 11.03.2017 and her missing report was entered in daily diary of Women Police Station, Rajouri on 15.03.2017. In the status report, it is stated that during search, it has been found that she has been kidnapped by one Zabeer Hussain Shah with the conspiracy of other alleged accused persons mentioned above. On this written report of complainant, FIR No. 12/2017 under Sections 363/109 RPC got registered at Women Police Station, Rajouri and investigation commenced. It is further stated in the status report that during the course of investigation, Police party recovered the missing girl, conducted the medical examination and also obtained the medical opinion from the District Hospital, Rajouri, prepared site plan, recorded the statement of complainant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Investigating Officer also produced the prosecutrix before the court for recording her statement under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. After completing all legal formalities, Investigating Officer proved and established the offence under Sections 363/376 RPC against Zabir Hussain Shah and offence under Sections 376/363/109/RPC is fully proved and established against Talib Hussain Shah and Mst. Channa Bi. It is further stated that Zahir Hussain Shah was not found involved in the commission of crime and his name has been dropped from the instant case. Two accused persons, namely, Talib Hussain Shah and Mst. Channa Bi were bailed out by the order of court below and Zabir Hussain Shah was absconded since after the commission of crime for which proceedings under Section 512 Cr.P.C. were initiated. Charge-sheet in the instant case was produced in the court of law on 18.09.2017, for judicial determination of the accused person. Presently the case is under trial before the court of Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajouri and the absconded accused person was arrested on 22.02.2018 and out of 13 PWs only 05 PWs appeared before the court for evidence and next date of hearing is fixed on 08-03-2019. 6. From the perusal of the documents annexed with the application, it is evident that challan in question is pending before the court below against the applicant and two more accused persons; other two accused persons were charged sheeted under sections 376/363/109 RPC and accused/applicant has been charge sheeted under sections 376/363 RPC; other two accused have been granted bail, but accused applicant has not been granted bail. 7. 7. During the course of trial, evidence of prosecution witnesses including prosecutrix has been recorded. Prosecutrix has categorically stated that she has appeared in the 10th class examination and applicant is her neighbour. She was engaged with her cousin Shafiq. The accused allured her that he will get her adjusted/engaged in some company, if she wants a job; but for that purpose she has to go along with him. The prosecutrix has further stated that the age of accused is like her father and his daughter is of her age, so she thought that accused would have thought for her welfare and she without telling her family went along with the accused-Zabeer to Jammu, where accused committed rape on her for two days in a room which he had already hired. Thereafter, on 13.03.2017 she was taken to Delhi in a sleeper and on 14.03.2017 she was taken to Gujarat in a Train. Prosecutrix has further stated that at Gujarat accused was having a Truck which he used to ply and she was kept in the said Truck for 7-8 days where the accused committed rape on her. Thereafter, her father contacted the accused on phone and accused brought her back to Jammu in a train and at Jammu she was boarded in a Tempo and after that accused fled away. On reaching Muradpur, Police caught of her from the said Tempo and took her in their vehicle to the Police Station and got her medical examination, thereafter she was handed over to her parents. 8. Section 497-C, Cr.P.C. reads as under:- "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 Sections 304-B, 326A, 370, 376, 376A, 376C, 376D, or 376-E 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) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub-section (1) shall be in addition to the restrictions under the Code or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. (3) Nothing in Section 497 A of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person accused of having committed an offence specified in sub-section (1)". 9. From the perusal of the aforesaid Section, it is evident that bail cannot be granted in cases of offence under Section 376 RPC, unless opportunity of hearing is given to Public Prosecutor/State and there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is prima facie case against accused. 10. All grounds taken in this petition are pertaining to detailed appreciation of facts, which this court cannot conduct while considering the bail petition in rape case. From the facts narrated by victim in court, it is evident that victim was minor at the time of incident and accused was more than 40 years; his daughter is of age of victim. Petitioner has spoiled the life of minor. There is, thus, a prima facie case at this stage to believe that accused has committed offence. The argument of counsel for petitioner that statement of prosecutrix does not inspire confidence of court, is also not tenable at this stage, as already held detailed appreciation of evidence of prosecution cannot be conducted at this stage. Trial court is already conducting trial and now it is for trial court to consider as to whether statement of victim inspires confidence of court or not. 11. Apex Court in case titled The State of Orissa vs. Mahimananda Mishra reported in (2018) 10 SCC 506 has held as under:- "12. Though this court may not ordinarily interfere with the orders of the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused, it is open for this Court to set aside the order of the High Court, where it is apparent that the High Court has not exercised its discretion judiciously and in accordance with the basic principles governing the grant of bail. (See the judgment of this Court in the case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 16 SCC 508 and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 ). (See the judgment of this Court in the case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 16 SCC 508 and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 ). It is by now well settled that at the time of considering an application for bail, the Court must take into account certain factors such as the existence of a prima facie case against the accused, the gravity of the allegations, position and status of the accused, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the Courts as well as the criminal antecedents of the accused. It is also well settled that the Court must not go into deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail. All that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused. (See the judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2018) 12 SCC 129 .) 13. Keeping in mind the aforementioned principles, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in going into the evidence on record in such a depth which amounts to ascertaining the probability of the conviction of the accused. On the other hand, the High Court has failed to appreciate several crucial factors that indicate that it was highly inappropriate to grant bail in favour of the respondent." 12. I have gone through the laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. These are not applicable in present set of circumstances of the case. 13. In view of above, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is dismissed accordingly.