The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated. It is pointed out that the applicant is not nominated in the FIR. However, his name has been introduced, for the first time, through the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix which is a statement, in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, manoeuvred by the police. It is also pointed out that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the applicant has been falsely nominated and credited with a role of taking away the prosecutrix to Haryana, along with Kuldeep and Nanhi @ Sangeeta, to a place called Rathauli in that State. It is said there that the main accused Tota Ram sold the prosecutrix to one Prem at Haryana for a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, and, the applicant along with Kuldeep and Nanhi @ Sangeeta, took her to Haryana. It is pointed out that in the ongoing trial that is S. T. No. 247 of 2018, the prosecutrix has come up with categorical case in her examination-in-chief, deposing as PW-2, on 22.11.2018 that she does not know the applicant Umlesh; that accused Umlesh, Kuldeep and Nanhi @ Sangeeta did not take her to Didhauli, Haryana; that Kuldeep and Umlesh did not ravish her; that she took the name of these accused at the bidding of her father in the written report; and, that before the Magistrate, she nominated the aforesaid accused at the bidding of the police who threatened the prosecutrix that unless the applicant Umlesh and co-accused Kuldeep, were nominated in her statement before the Magistrate, the prosecutrix's family members would be implicated in a false case. It is said that it was on this account that she named the applicant and the coaccused before the Magistrate in her statement under Section
