N.L.Tibrewal, J. - (1.) This is second bail application of the petitioners. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 10.5.91 giving liberty to the petitioners to file fresh application after challan is filed. Now this application has been filed after challan is filed.
(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the prosecutrix, Smt. Sukhi Devi herself has given an affidavit before the Sessions Court denying the fact of having committed rape on her by the petitioners. He has drawn my attention to the various proceedings which took place before the learned Sessions Judge. He further drew my attention about the note made by the learned Sessions Judge on 25.6.91 showing that Smt Sukhi Devi, prosecutrix had not given the affidavit under any pressure as such there is no necessity to send her to Nari Niketan. Learned counsel also drew my attention to medical report and argues that no injury was found on her private part.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petition further submits that the petitioners are in jail for the last about four months.;