Cr.M.P(M) No. 562 of 2008 16.6.2008 Present: Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General for respondent. This bail application has been filed by the petitioner in respect of F.I.R. No. 22/08 registered with the Police Station, Baddi, on 11th February, 2008. The prosecution case is that one Sandeep Arora gave a lift in his car to the prosecutrix ( name withheld). The prosecutrix works in the factory owned by Sandeep Arora. He thereafter made sexual overtures to her which she spurned. Thereafter, according to the prosecutrix she was taken to a Guest House. She was given a drink. According to her something was administered in the drink and she got intoxicated and lost her senses. When she regained consciousness, she found that her clothes were disarranged and according to her she had been raped against her wishes. The petitioner, Rajeev Kapoor, Manager of the factory owned by Sandeep Arora was present there and he offered some money to the prosecutrix on behalf of Sanjeev Arora. In the last portion of her statement to the police, the prosecutrix has stated that the company owner Sandeep Arora and Manager, Rajeev Kapoor had both given her some intoxicating substance in the cold drink and had raped her against her wishes. The prosecutrix thereafter went to the Police Station and lodged the report. Challan has already been filed in the case. The bail application filed by Shri Sandeep Arora has already been rejected by me. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the case of the present petitioner is different. It is argued that in the first part of the statement no active role has been attributed to the present petitioner. In the first part of the statement both the allegations i.e. administering of the intoxicating drug as well as allegation of rape are against Sandeep Arora only and the only role attributed to the present petitioner is that he offered money to the prosecutrix on behalf of Sandeep Arora. I am unable to accept this contention. No doubt, in the first part of the statement, the prosecutrix has not stated that the petitioner committed rape on her. However, in the last lines of her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. she has clearly stated that the intoxicating substance was given to her in a cold drink by both Sandeep Arora and the present petitioner. She has clearly stated that both Rajeev Kapoor and Sandeep Arora committed rape on her. At this stage one cannot go into the finer points as to whether the latter part of the statement is to be believed or not. As far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, at this stage, keeping in view the material on record and the fact that this case is still pending for trial, I do not think it necessary or expedient to make any observations with regard to the age of the prosecutrix. Even assuming that she is a major, as per the allegations made by her she was administered a drug and raped when she was under the influence of drug. Whether she had consented or not to the sexual act is a question which will have to be decided at the stage of the trial. Whether the prosecutrix is a minor or not is also a question to be decided at the time of the trial. However, keeping in view the allegation of the prosecutrix and also the fact the Forensic Science Laboratory has found traces of Nitrazepam in the blood and urine samples of the prosecutrix, at this stage, it cannot be said with certainty that the petitioner is not guilty of an offence punishable with more than 10 years imprisonment. Nitrazepam is a strong drug used to induce sleep. Whether a person under the influence of such a drug can be said to willingly consent to sex is something which will have to be decided at the stage of trial. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the fact according to Forensic Science Laboratory some traces of Nitrazepam have been found in the blood and urine samples of the prosecutrix, I do not feel that this is a fit case of grant of bail. The application is rejected. However, after the statement of the prosecutrix is recorded in the trial Court, then the petitioner, if so advised, can make a fresh application for grant of bail before this Court. June 16, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. ™