BailAppl 731/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH [1] S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.731/08 Shyamlal Bunkar Versus State [2] S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1134/08 Parmeshwar Sharma & Anr. Versus State DATE OF ORDER : 12/02/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Biri Singh, for accused-petitioners Mr. Rajeev Surana, for complainant Mr. R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor *** Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and so also counsel for complainant and perused the material on record. The nature of accusation is very serious in nature. A case u/s.376(2)(g) IPC has been registered against accused-petitioners. Prosecutrix is a minor. But, at the same time, she has named these accused- petitioners in her statements recorded u/ss.161 & 164 Cr.P.C. Affidavit has been filed in this court signed by her father and also by prosecutrix herself in which it has been stated that present accused-petitioners were not involved in the commission of offence and they were not known to her. Counsel for petitioner submits that in view of her affidavit filed in this court, the present accused- petitioners were not involved in the commission of offence, atleast CJM may be directed to hold test identification parade which will give an opportunity to the prosecutrix also to identify the accused- BailAppl 731/08 [2] petitioners if they too are involved in the commission of offence and in support of his submission, counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Nisar Mohd. Vs. State of Rajasthan [RLR 1985 376]. In the facts of instant case, the prosecutrix being a minor, has specifically named the present accused-petitioners in her statements recorded u/ss.161 & 164 Cr.P.C. Affidavit, which has been submitted before this court, will not be of any consequence and cannot be considered by this court at this stage. If such affidavit is filed, it is for the learned trial Judge/Investigating Officer to consider the same. So far as identification of accused-petitioners is concerned, trial Judge is directed to take proper action for holding identification parade of accused- petitioners as provided and proceed in accordance with law. Taking note of the material on record, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail u/s.438 Cr.P.C. to the accused-petitioners. Consequently, both the bail applications u/s.438 Cr.P.C. stand dismissed. However, if petitioners surrender before learned trial Judge, their bail application be simultaneously considered in accordance with law. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA731Bail Application2008 12-2.doc