Cr.M.P.(M) 620 of 2009. 3.8.2009 Present: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. for the respondent. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No. 286 of 2008 dated 23.8.2008 registered at Police Station, Balh, District Mandi, under Sections 376, 511, 506 and 292 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate has strenuously argued that his client is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated by the police. He then contended that since challan has already been put up and his client may be enlarged on bail. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has opposed the application. I have heard the parties and have gone through the status report produced by the prosecution. The First Information Report was registered on 23.8.2008. The petitioner was arrested on the same day. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that false F.I.R. has been registered at the instance of the mother of the girl. The girl has presented the complaint on 23.8.2008 when she visited the Police Station with her mother and maternal grand father. Serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner by his own daughter in the First Information Report. The statements of all the prosecution witnesses were recorded. The police has also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and also recovered two blue C.Ds. The age of the prosecutrix was 16 years at the time of filing the complaint in the Police Station. The police has also recorded statement of mother, brother and grand mother during the course of investigation. The petitioner had earlier approached the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi seeking bail. The same was rejected by him on 18.3.2009. He also filed Cr.M.P.(M) No. 245 of 2009 before this Court. The same was withdrawn by the petitioner on 10.4.2009. There is no changed circumstance between 18.3.2009 till date. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petitioner has not made out a case for his release on bail. Accordingly, the application is rejected. The observations made in this order are for the disposal of this application and the same shall not be treated as an expression or opinion on the merits of the case. (Rajiv Sharma), J. August 3, 2009. (cr)