JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) BY filing the present petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought regular bail in case FIR No.4, dated 7.1.2012, registered under Sections 376(g), 363, 366, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Palwal.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the role attributed to the petitioner is that he distracted the other accused Rahul and Dalip to take the prosecutrix. But there is no allegation of committing rape upon her by the petitioner. The complainant is a consenting party. Despite the suggestion, no ossification test of the prosecutrix was got conducted. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as he lodged the complaint against the father of the prosecutrix. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail of the petitioner. Heard. Though the charges have been framed, but no witness has been examined so far. There is delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR. The petitioner is in custody since 8.1.2012. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time.
(3.) WITHOUT expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial subject to furnishing the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.;