SHAMBHU BHARTI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a third application for bail on behalf of the petitioner Shambhu Bharti. He is being prosecuted for an offence under Section 376 IPC. His first application was rejected by this Court on 15 -7 -1987 observing that at that stage the Court was not inclined to grant bail. The second application was also rejected on 5 -2 -1988 because it was found that the prosecutrix had not been examined at that stage and that the case was fixed for the prosecution evidence on 28 -3 -1988. The prosecutrix may be examined on that day, direction was given to the learned Public Prosecutor to see that the prosecutrix is examined. It was also observed that the date fixed was a little far off, and the petitioner would be free to move an application for fixing an earlier date for the examination of the prosecutrix. The learned Counsel submits that an application was moved but the date was not changed. On 28 3 -1988, the prosecutrix is alleged to be present but the matter could not be taken up as the Advocates were on strike. The next date fixed was 19th and 20th April, 1988. On both these dates the prosecutrix did not appear. On 19 -4 -1988, PW 1 Dr. Shashibala was examined and no other witness was present. On 20 -4 -1988 no witness again was present. It was observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the accused had been in custody and the witnesses have not been appearing despite service. He, therefore, directed bailable warrants to be issued against them and the next date fixed is 23 -5 -1988. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed the certified copies of the order -sheets referred to above for my perusal.

(2.) FROM the perusal of the orders passed by this Court earlier as also the order -sheets of the learned Sessions Judge, it clearly appears that sufficient opportunities had been granted to the prosecution to examine the prosecutrix but it has not availed of these opportunities. The prosecutrix had been served for the date 19 -4 -1S88 but she has not cared to appear on 19 -4 -1988 or 20 -4 -1988, the next date already fixed. The Public Prosecutor also does not appear to have taken any interest in seeing that the witness is produced before the court on the date fixed. In these circumstances I am inclined to think that the prosecutrix is not keen in appearing before the court and the matter is being purposely delayed. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.