In her statement, the child victim has alleged that she was employed in the office of the accused and the applicant/ Javed was known to her family and had proposed to employ her at a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. The child victim joined the office as an Office Helper. She has claimed that on 05.04.2023 after returning home from her office, she was called back by the applicant/ Javed, who offered her food and cold drink, after which he committed the offence of rape, followed by accused Pancham and Naushad . She was also threatened by the applicant/ Javed not to disclose the incident to anyone. She has categorically repeated the allegations against the applicants in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P..C as well as in her deposition before the Court. Although there is no explanation as to whether the child victim carried a mobile phone or if it was seized, Ld. APP for the State, during the course of submission, and on instructions, submits that the child victim also alleged that when she told about the incident to her father, her father called Javed and gave beatings to him. He further submits that phone calls were exchanged between Javed and father of the child victim on 05.04.2023, 08.04.2023 and 10.04.2023. Prosecution has also examined Rahul , the person whom the child victim married. The child victim later claimed that she disclosed about the incident to Rahul , who on being told, deserted her. Rahul has been examined as PW4. He also narrated the factum of incident being told to him by the child victim. Although he mentioned only Javed but that in no manner negates the allegations against Naushad . 4. Considering that the child victim has consistently stated about the role of the present applicants, I find no ground to admit the applicants on regular bail. Consequently, both the bail applications are dismissed.
