IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 437 of 2010 Date of decision : 21.5.2010. Dharam Sain ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 35 of 2007 registered on 4.4.2007 at Police Station, Nirmand, District Kullu under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. Status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 15.5.2007 in FIR No. 35 of 2007 and since then he is in jail. It has also been submitted that MLC of the prosecutrix does not establish the ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 commission of offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge was framed on 29.5.2008 and since then there is no progress in the trial except recording of one prosecution witness. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in these circumstances, the petitioner may be released on bail on such terms as this Court deems just and proper. 3. The application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General and has submitted that the bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. of the petitioner was rejected by this Court on 15.5.2007. Thereafter, another bail application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur on 4.7.2007. This Court again rejected the bail application of the petitioner on 30.8.2007. In the order dated 30.8.2007 the MLC of the prosecutrix was considered. There is no change of circumstance. 4. There is no denial of the fact that after framing of the charge the trial is going with slow progress but keeping in view the age of the prosecutrix which was about 11 years at the time of the commission of the offence according to prosecution the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage in view of seriousness of the offence. This court has already considered the case of the petitioner on 30.8.2007. There is no change of circumstance, the present bail application is dismissed. In view of the fact that the charge was framed on 29.5.2008, the trial Court is directed to decide the matter as early as possible keeping in view his docket. May 21, 2010 ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.