JUDGMENT : IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Sri. S.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the respondent State and Sri. Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the complainant. 2. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No. 0004 of 2020 under Sections 376, 504, 506, 501 IPC and Section 67 Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 registered at police station Kotwli Nagar, District Ayodhya. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the applicant married with the prosecutrix under Hindu rituals and both were residing as husband and wife. He next submitted that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were on the pressure exerted by the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix. He further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history and is in jail since 15.03.2020. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty granted to her. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the bail and submitted that the allegation levelled in the F.I.R. has been corroborated with the statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. They further submitted that there is no material to establish the marriage of the applicant with the prosecutrix, therefore, the entire submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is based on conjecture and surmises. Last submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that there is sufficient material to establish applicant's involvement in the occurrence took place, therefore, he is not entitled for enlargement on bail. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. On perusal, it is transpired that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are corroborated with the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and there is no contradiction in the allegations levelled. 7. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. On perusal, it is transpired that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are corroborated with the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and there is no contradiction in the allegations levelled. 7. On perusal of the record, prima-facie, it has also been reflected that the incident of rape has been committed by the applicant in the hotel and as per statement of the manager of the hotel, the applicant stayed in the hotel on the date of occurrence, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled for enlargement on bail. 8. Accordingly, the application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 9. It is, however, made clear that the observations made above shall not affect trial of the case.