JUDGMENT : 1. The present bail application has been filed under Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.403/2021, registered at Police Station Shrimadhopur, District Sikar for the offence(s) under Sections 376 & 506 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that the prosecutrix lodged an FIR under Sections 376 & 506 IPC alleging that the petitioner had called the prosecutrix on the pretext of attending birthday party of his sister in a restaurant, where on arrival, it was found that sister of the petitioner was not present and the petitioner is alleged to have taken the prosecutrix on the first floor of the restaurant and there he is said to have committed rape. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded immediately under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the prosecutrix clearly admitted her relation with the present petitioner from last several months. The prosecutrix further stated that the mobile phone was also provided to her by the petitioner and they were continuously talking to each other. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statement of the proseuctrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is at variance and false story of calling the prosecutrix and then to commit rape has been created in order to implicate the present petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and prosecutrix had consensual relations and only under threat of the parents of the prosecutrix, the present FIR has been lodged. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Police during investigation has recovered pen drive and photographs of both wherein, it is clearly revealed that the they were talking to each other and sending messages. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by owner of the restaurant also denies any such allegation of rape being committed on the prosecutrix or any voice being raised by her. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the prosecutrix was medically examined and she did not suffer any external injury and as such, the theory of rape is absolutely false. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the statement of sister of the petitioner who is said to be friend of the prosecutrix also clearly reveals that the consensual relations between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, were continuing since long time. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the statement of sister of the petitioner who is said to be friend of the prosecutrix also clearly reveals that the consensual relations between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, were continuing since long time. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Police after investigation has filed final report and petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the present bail application and submitted that the prosecutrix has specifically levelled allegation of committing rape on her and as far as statement under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. are concerned, the fact of committing rape on the prosecutrix is reiterated by her and only on account of having telephonic conversation between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, no inference could be drawn that the petitioner has not committed rape. 12. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 13. This Court, prima-facie, notices the following features in the present case, which are read as under:- (i) The statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. clearly admits her relation with the petitioner from last several months. (ii) The mobile phone used by the prosecutrix is said to have been given by the petitioner himself. (iii) The Police during investigation has recovered pen drive and photographs along with messages exchanged between the prosecutrix and the petitioner. (iv) The allegation of calling the prosecutrix by accused is also at variance with statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where she admits of going to party by her own will. (v) The Police has conducted the investigation and petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. 14. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, deems it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail. 15. Accordingly, the present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Anil Kumar Saini S/o Shri Papu Ram Saini, shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.