1 6 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4886/2009. Hari Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 10th December 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. H.S. Shrimali, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Joshi, Public Prosecutor. ... BY THE COURT: The learned counsel for the petitioner has made a request for yet another adjournment. The request is declined in the given set of facts and circumstance. This bail application, filed way back on 14.09.2009, was taken up for consideration on 18.09.2009 and, for nobody appearing for the petitioner, was adjourned to 05.10.2009. On 05.10.2009, the learned Public Prosecutor was granted time to procure the case diary and the matter was ordered to be listed on 22.10.2009. On 22.10.2009, this Court recorded the proceedings thus: “This matter was adjourned on 18.09.2009 to 05.10.2009 for nobody being present for the petitioner. Then on 05.10.2009 the Public Prosecutor was granted time to procure the case diary. 2 Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that challan has been filed in the matter. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that he has available with him the CO file. The CO file has been perused. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he could argue the matter only after receiving the challan papers and prays for adjournment. As the request for adjournment is made on behalf of the petitioner for want of challan papers, the matter is adjourned; be listed on 06.11.2009.” Then, the matter was taken up on 06.11.2009 but nobody chose to appear for the petitioner and this Court observed thus: “This matter was considered on 22nd October 2009 and the file as available with the learned Public Prosecutor was examined; however, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he could argue the matter only after receiving the challan papers and prayed for adjournment; and, at request, the matter was adjourned for this date. The matter has been called out and despite waiting for long, nobody has appeared for the petitioner. The copies of challan papers have also not been filed. The matter stands adjourned. List this matter on 4th December 2009” Thereafter, this matter was listed on 04.12.2009, was called out, and was passed over. This matter was again listed on 08.12.2009 and was again passed over; and has been taken up for consideration today. 3 This Court finds no reason or justification to grant the prayer for adjournment as made in this case today and hence, the prayer has been declined. The learned counsel for the petitioner has now argued on the bail plea of the petitioner with the submissions that the prosecutrix has been alleged to be minor in age but then, she had stated her age at 19 years in her statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in the medical age estimation too, she has been stated to be about 20 years of age. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the allegations about minority of the prosecutrix are belied with the material available on record. The learned counsel has further referred to the contents of the statements of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and submitted that according to her, three persons had committed rape at about 1'O clock in the night but then, she has specifically denied identifying any person. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the accusations in the FIR and the suggestions on the identity of the petitioner remain baseless. It is further submitted that though in relation to the other accused Mana Ram, it has been alleged that he was caught at the site but then, in relation to the petitioner the allegation had been of his having fled; and in the totality of 4 circumstances, such nature accusations are clearly indicative of the falsity of the prosecution case. The CO file as available with the learned Public Prosecutor has been examined and apart from other aspects, the facts are noticed about the injury on the private parts and so also about other injuries on the body of the prosecutrix, as indicated in the medical examination report. Looking to the nature of the accusations and the overall circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the submissions as made do not make out a case for grant of bail at this stage. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the petitioner Hari Ram S/o Kumbha Ram stands rejected at this stage. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//