Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that after the rejection of the first bail application, during the course of trial, statement of the victim has been recorded as P.W.-1, however she has not supported the prosecution story at all and has been declared hostile. On her attention being drawn to her statement shown to be recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., though she admitted her photographs and thumb impression on the said statement, however after being declared hostile and on being cross-examined, she has categorically stated that she had not given any such statement to the police shown to be recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On her attention being drawn to her statement shown to be recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has categorically stated that the said statement was given under the pressure of the police, who had threatened to give such statement, else would be sent to jail and has further stated that said statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is infact incorrect and false. On her further cross examination, she has categorically denied the factum that the applicant alongwith co-accused Ratnesh had ever committed rape on her. Looking to the statement of the victim recorded during the course of trial and changed circumstance, prima facie a case for bail is made out. Furthermore, the applicant is in jail since 10.2.2021 and has continuously been cooperating in the process of trial and there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In the backdrop of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that prima facie applicant has made out a case for bail.
