1 S/1 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5075/2009. Kesha Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 17th December 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Narpat Singh Khileri, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Joshi, Public Prosecutor. ... BY THE COURT: The petitioner is facing trial in Sessions Case No. 88/2007 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Merta for offences under Sections 452, 363, 366-A, 376(2)(g) IPC and 3(1)(x)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; and has moved this application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. This bail application was filed on 23.09.2009 with reference to the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 31.01.2009. In this bail application, earlier, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecutrix had been examined and prayed for time to place on record the copies of the statements and at request, the matter was adjourned. During the course of submissions later, when it was pointed out that a criminal revision petition is pending in this 2 Court and the original record of the Trial Court has been requisitioned therein, after supplying of the particulars, the case file of Criminal Revision Petition No. 178/2009 has been requisitioned from the office and it is noticed that the original record of the Trial Court is attached thereto. It is noticed from the record of the Trial Court that the prosecutrix was indeed examined in the trial on 07.06.2008 but then, her cross-examination was deferred for want of documents. Thereafter, her cross-examination was further deferred on 21.07.2008 at the request of the counsel for the accused. The prosecutrix again appeared on 08.08.2008 but for the lawyers abstaining from work, the matter was adjourned. The prosecutrix again appeared before the Trial Court on 18.08.2008 but for the same reason, the case was adjourned again. Then, on a few occasions, though the prosecutrix did not appear but the record of the proceedings shows that the counsel abstained from work. The prosecutrix, thereafter, appeared on 21.10.2008 when an application was moved on behalf of the accused under Section 190, 193, 204 Cr.P.C. and the prayer was made for adjournment on behalf of the accused for the purpose of cross-examination. It appears that thereafter, the matter was considered on the application moved for taking cognizance against some other persons. The prosecutrix again appeared before the Trial Court on 3 29.01.2009, but again, for the request made by the counsel for the accused, the matter was adjourned for her cross- examination. The cross-examination of the prosecutrix was not carried out yet and after few more adjournments with reference to filing of the revision petition in this Court, the matter remained pending; and thereafter, as noticed, the record has been requisitioned in the said revision petition. In the given set of facts and circumstances, when the examination-in-chief of the prosecutrix has been recorded in the trial and her cross-examination has remained pending, this Court, at this stage, does not feel inclined to grant indulgence to the petitioner. The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the petitioner Kesha Ram S/o Puran Mal @ Purna Ram stands rejected at this stage; but without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to apply for bail afresh after completion of the statements of the prosecutrix and to take recourse to other remedies in accordance with law. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//