Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is not named in the first information report lodged by Kalua, the father of the prosecutrix, under Section 452, 366, 324, 506 I.P.C. It is argued that the same is lodged against Jalees Ahmad, Jameel Ahmad, Arshad and Imran with the allegations that his daughter aged about 21 years was to be married with Arshad but since Arshad was older to her the same was objected by his wife and then her marriage was fixed with one Javed of his village. The marriage was settled. On 11.1.2021 at about 11.30 p.m. the named accused persons came to his house and told his daughter to marry Arshad, which was refused by them, and then they assaulted them with sharp weapons and threatened the first informant. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that subsequently, the prosecutrix was recovered on 20.1.2021, which is after 11 days of her being taken away by the accused persons, from district Rohtak, Haryana along with Arshad, who is a co-accused. It is argued that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix, she for the first time named the applicant as an accused along with co-accused Arshad, Jalees, Usman and Shareef and has stated that the accused persons pointed a pistol towards her father and she was then taken away in a vehicle to Haryana while going through various places. It is argued that in the said statement, there is no allegation of rape or any sexual assault on her. Subsequently, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which again she named the applicant and has levelled allegations that co-accused Arshad and the applicant Usman raped her one day after which on the next day co-accused Shareef, and Jalees
