JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 128/2022 for offences under Sections 366, 376 and 109 IPC. The case is stated to be pending before the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Poonch (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court), where the trial is going on. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that he was arrested on 19.05.2022 in a false and frivolous FIR and that presently he is facing trial before the trial court. According to the petitioner, the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded before the trial court during trial of the case and from her statement, it is clear that her version of the occurrence is unworthy of credit. The petitioner has further submitted that after recording of the statement of the prosecutrix, he had applied before the trial court for grant of bail but his application was rejected by the said court in terms of order dated 07.06.2023. It has been contended that the order of rejection of bail application of the petitioner has been passed by the trial court without correctly appreciating the material on record. The other ground urged by the petitioner is that he has to support his old and ailing parents and in his absence, it is becoming very difficult to take care of the needs of his parents. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court in the event, he is admitted to bail. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have contested the present bail application by filing objections thereto. In their objections, the respondents have narrated the prosecution version of the case and they have submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence, as such, he does not deserve the concession of bail. It has been further contended that the prosecutrix has clearly implicated the petitioner, while making her statement during trial of the case. Thus, involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime is prima facie, established. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents. I have also perused the evidence available on record. Thus, involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime is prima facie, established. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents. I have also perused the evidence available on record. Before coming to the rival contentions of the parties, let me give a brief background of the prosecution case. 5. On 18.05.2022, the prosecutrix approached Police Station Surankote and submitted a written application alleging therein that her husband is presently working in Saudi Arabia as a labourer and when the petitioner came to know about it, he started harassing and threatening her, whereafter he committed rape upon her. It was further alleged in the application that the petitioner took away some golden ornaments and a cash amount of Rs 4.50 lacs from her and he also took some nude photographs of the prosecutrix, whereafter, the petitioner threatened her that if she disclosed the matter relating to rape to any one, he would make these photographs viral. As a result of this, the prosecutrix remained silent but on 18.05.2022 when she was proceeding to Allahi Public School at Surankote in order to drop her children to the School, the petitioner kidnapped her with the aide and assistance of other persons named in the complaint. When they reached at Potha Bypass, she started crying and some locals came on spot, stopped the vehicle. In this manner, the prosecutrix was saved from the clutches of the accused. 6. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 128/2022 for offences under Sections 366 and 109 IPC was registered and investigation of the case was started. During investigation of the case, statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. was recorded and statements of other witnesses were also recorded. Call data records of mobile phones of the prosecutrix and the petitioner were also obtained. After investigation of the case, offence under Sections 366 and 376 IPC were found established against the petitioner, whereas other persons named in the compliant of the prosecutrix were not found involved in the alleged crime. Accordingly, the challan was produced against the petitioner only. 7. After framing of the charges, the trial of the case commenced and statement of the prosecutrix and certain other prosecution witnesses have already been examined. 8. Accordingly, the challan was produced against the petitioner only. 7. After framing of the charges, the trial of the case commenced and statement of the prosecutrix and certain other prosecution witnesses have already been examined. 8. The primary ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of bail is that from the statement of the prosecutrix recorded during the trial of the case, it is clear that her statement is not of sterling quality on the basis of which, conviction of the petitioner is possible. Therefore, the petitioner has carved out a prima facie case for grant of bail. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded during the trial of the case. It would be apt to notice the portions of the statement of the prosecutrix to which learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court. 9. In her statement before the trial court, the prosecutrix has stated that her husband was away in Saudi Arabia, where he was working as a labourer and taking advantage of this, the petitioner started harassing and following her. She has further stated that she changed her rented accommodation on a number of occasions and ultimately went to Surankote to her matrimonial home but the petitioner followed her. She has gone on to state that the petitioner told her that in case, she does not talk to her, she will make her nude photographs viral, whereafter, he made physical relationship with her. She further stated that in Surankote, while she was proceeding to drop her children to the school, the petitioner followed her and she narrated this incident to her family. This led to filing of the FIR. 10. In her cross examination, the prosecutrix has stated that the photographs, on the basis of which, she has been blackmailed by the petitioner are not on court file. She has also stated that her relations with her husband were not cordial and now the same have improved. She has admitted that she had uploaded a video on Whatsapp, declaring therein that she wanted to get divorce from her husband. She further stated that she had approached Police Station, Women’s Cell, Poonch in the year, 2022 and filed an application against her in-laws stating therein that they are harassing her. She has admitted that she had uploaded a video on Whatsapp, declaring therein that she wanted to get divorce from her husband. She further stated that she had approached Police Station, Women’s Cell, Poonch in the year, 2022 and filed an application against her in-laws stating therein that they are harassing her. She also stated that she had filed an application before the Secretary District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Poonch seeking protection because she was being harassed by her in-laws. She admitted that in her application to the Secretary that she had expressed her willingness to enter into wedlock with the petitioner, whereafter he was summoned by the Secretary DLSA. She further stated that the Secretary DLSA did not take any action on her application and she was sent back to her in-laws house. She also stated that after all these events, she lodged the FIR. She went to state that the Secretary DLSA asked the petitioner to divorce his first wife and enter into wedlock with the prosecutrix. 11. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the prosecutrix, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an entirely new story has been projected by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded during trial of the case. He has contended that there is no mention of taking away of any golden ornaments and cash by the petitioner as there is no mention of kidnapping of the prosecutrix by the petitioner as was alleged by her in the application on the basis of which, the FIR came to be registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix at best reveals that there was a consensual relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix and she intended to enter into wedlock with the petitioner, which she has admitted in her application made to the Secretary DLSA. It has also been contended that the prosecutrix had admitted that she had strained relations with her husband because she has been harassed by him and her in-laws and that she had approached Secretary DLSA so as to enter into wedlock with the petitioner. 12. On the basis of above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that if at all any sexual intercourse has taken place between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, the same is consensual in nature. 12. On the basis of above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that if at all any sexual intercourse has taken place between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, the same is consensual in nature. Having regard to the fact that both the petitioner and the prosecutrix are not only major but are grown up people, as such, the prosecutrix knew the consequences of her relationship with the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be a case of forcible sexual intercourse. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of PW Kaneez Akhter, who has stated that the prosecutrix has foisted a false case upon the petitioner as she wanted to enter into wedlock with him. The learned counsel has submitted that the said prosecution witness has not been declared hostile as such, her statement is binding upon the prosecution. 14. At the time of considering an application for bail of an accused, it is not open to the Court to meticulously examine the evidence led by the prosecution during the trial of the case, but for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of bail, it is open to this Court to evaluate the prosecution evidence. In the instant case as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, prima facie it appears that the statement of the prosecution on essential aspects of the case is not of sterling quality. Without commenting much upon the evidentiary value and the credit of the statement of the prosecutrix, suffice it to say prima facie it appears that offences with which the petitioner has been charged are not made out against him. Thus, the petitioner has been successful in carving out a case for grant of bail at this stage. 15. Learned trial court, while refusing bail to the petitioner, has not taken into consideration the aforesaid aspects of the case. In fact, the learned trial court has not evaluated the statement of the prosecutrix for the limited purpose of considering the bail application and instead the trial court has observed that she has corroborated the fact that she has been subjected to rape, without analysing her said statement on the touch stone of reliability for the limited purpose of deciding the bail application. The approach adopted by the learned trial court, while dealing with the bail application of the petitioner, is not in accordance with law. Therefore, having regard to the nature of evidence on record, it is well within the jurisdiction of this Court, being a superior court, to take a view different from the one taken by the trial court. 16. Apart from the above, the petitioner has been in custody for the last about one year and ten months. The evidence of the prosecution has progressed substantially inasmuch as, out of 11 prosecution witnesses cited in the challan, five witnesses including the prosecutrix and her mother have been examined. Therefore, even if the petitioner is admitted to bail, there is hardly any chance of his influencing the prosecution witnesses or tampering with the prosecution evidence. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the present application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to the following conditions: (i) That he shall furnish surety bond and personal bond in the amount of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court. (ii) That he shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of hearing without fail and his absence would entail cancellation of his bail on a motion by the prosecution. (iii) That he shall furnish particulars of his present residence and place of work along with his cell number(s) to the trial court as well as to the Public Prosecutor. (iv) That he shall not tamper with or influence the prosecution witnesses and he shall not come into contact with them in any manner whatsoever. (v) That he shall not leave the limits of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without the permission of the trial court. 18. Any opinion expressed in this order on the issues involved is limited to the disposal of this petition and it shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. 19. The bail application is disposed of accordingly.