ORDER : 1. The prayer made in this bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 483 new Code) is for grant of bail in connection with crime registered pursuant to First Information Report Number 074/2024 of Police Station Thanwla District Nagaur in respect of offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 376(2)(N) and 506 of I.P.C. 2. Let me give a very brief factual backdrop to understand the entire matter in the right perspective which is that prosecutrix Miss ‘M’ aged about 19 years filed a report stating that the petitioner Raju Singh harasses her daily over the phone and verbally abuses her at night after consuming alcohol. He visits the shop owned by the victim's father daily. Petitioner secretly made a video of the victim and threatened to make it viral saying that “Do as I say and come whenever I tell you or I will defame you.” He allegedly took the victim out of the village and raped her two or three times and has kept her picture and video on his mobile phone. After investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted but the trial has yet to begin. 3. Learned counsel representing petitioner has fervently argued that First Information Report regarding the incident has been lodged after significant delay which raises doubt about the credibility of the case. The victim has not provided a specific date of alleged rape incident and is not sure about the exact date of rape. The FIR mentions that the petitioner harassed the victim through phone calls but no Call Detail Records (CDR) were collected during the investigation to support this allegation. It is further argued that victim has also failed to provide the exact location of alleged incident of rape that occurred outside the village, leaving crucial details unclear. There are important contradictions between facts of FIR, the victim's statement under Section 161 and under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., which cast doubt on the consistency of the case and make it appear suspicious. Given the inconsistencies and lack of clarity, learned counsel argues that, at most, the case should be considered one of consensual relations rather than a case of rape. It is further argued that the petitioner is innocent person and a false case has been foisted against him. With the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and petitioner may be enlarged on bail. It is further argued that the petitioner is innocent person and a false case has been foisted against him. With the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the release of the petitioner on bail at this stage on the ground that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record which would prima-facie point towards the guilt of the applicant. Keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by petitioner, he thus, craves rejection of the petitioner's bail application. 5. This Court has carefully perused the record as well as considered the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties. 6. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, I am clearly of the view that delayed filing of a First Information Report in rape case is relatively common and reasons are deeply rooted in social, psychological and systemic factors. In a society where issues of honor and modesty are paramount, victims of sexual violence often fear that reporting a rape will lead to social shame and ostracism. After such a violent experience, victims often struggle with the trauma, making it difficult to quickly decide to report the crime. The emotional aftermath can lead to confusion, fear and withdrawal, delaying the decision to file an FIR. Victims belonging to marginalized or economically weaker sections of society, may further discourage from reporting such crime as they may lack the resources, legal knowledge or means to navigate the complex legal process. Further, families often discourage victims from filing an FIR due to concerns about reputation, marriage prospects or fear of further harm. This pressure can cause significant delays in reporting. In the present case, this Court acknowledges these complexities and prima facie do not view the delay in lodging of present FIR with suspicion as victim and her family needed time to overcome various hurdles before approaching the authorities. Therefore, this argument is not tenable. 7. As far as the argument of victim’s consent is concerned, this Court is of the view that in a rape case, the consent of the victim cannot be presumed simply based on the surrounding circumstances, especially when the victim has explicitly stated in her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. that she was raped. 7. As far as the argument of victim’s consent is concerned, this Court is of the view that in a rape case, the consent of the victim cannot be presumed simply based on the surrounding circumstances, especially when the victim has explicitly stated in her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. that she was raped. The statement as expressed under Section 164 Cr.P.C. takes precedence over the assumption. The law recognizes that consent must be knowing its result and nature. It cannot be gathered as positive in the present set of given circumstances, at the stage of considering the bail application and prior to recording the statement of victim during trial. 8. Some contradictions in the victim's statement may arise but they are not necessarily significant to the overall truth of the claim at the stage of deciding the bail applications of the accused. Defense is entitled to cross-examine the victim to clarify these contradictions. It is essential to testify the victim during the trial and the defense can ask questions to uncover details or clarify points that may have seemed contradictory or unclear in earlier statements. Therefore, the victim’s statement is crucial to resolving such contradictions. 9. In view of the enormous prima facie material placed on record in respect of the applicant, the allegations leveled against the petitioner, I am of the considered view that looking to the nature and gravity of the accusation in the instant case, the role attributed to the petitioner, the antecedents of the applicant and the case set up against petitioner in its entirety, the petitioner is not found entitled to be released on bail. In my opinion, petitioner is not entitled to any sympathy from this Court either on account of his age or infirmity for his release on bail. 10. In view of the above, I do not find this to be a fit case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. Any observation made herein above shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.