1 35 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. 2nd BAIL APPLN. NO. 1146/2010. Dhanna Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 25th February 2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. S.D.Goswami, for the petitioner. Mr. A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor. ... BY THE COURT: The petitioner, accused of offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, has moved this third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The first application for bail (No. 2534/2009) as moved by the petitioner was rejected on 08.07.2009 as not pressed. After examination of the prosecutrix, the petitioner moved the second application for bail (No. 6022/2009) that was considered and rejected on 24.11.2009 as not pressed at the given stage. After rejection of the second bail application, in the trial, the witness PW-13 Medical Officer concerned was examined. The petitioner thereafter moved another bail application to the learned Trial Court that came to be rejected on 01.02.2010, inter alia, with the observations that the trial was almost complete and only the Investigating Officer was to be examined. 2 Though learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously attempted to argue that the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution case and even the other independent witnesses also have not supported the prosecution case and there is no likelihood of the petitioner being convicted but it is noticed that so far the prosecution evidence is concerned, 12 witnesses had already been examined when the second bail application was considered by this Court and the same was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, only the Medical Officer PW-13 has been examined and having gone through his statements coupled with the statements hitherto recorded, this Court is unable to find any justification so as to grant indulgence in this third bail application to the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the petitioner Dhanna Ram S/o Madan Lal stands rejected. However, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is considered appropriate and hence observed that if the petitioner makes a request to the learned Trial Court for expeditious proceedings and for conclusion of the trial at the earliest, the same be given due consideration in accordance with law. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//