P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Accused-petitioner has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 arising out of FIR No. 178/2017, registered at Police Station Mandal, District Bhilwara, wherein he is charged for offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 376-D IPC.
(2.) At the behest of petitioner, first bail application bearing No. 6576/2017 was filed but the same was dismissed as not pressed on 17th of August, 2017.
(3.) Arguing on the second bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel that after rejection of first bail application, there is substantial change in the circumstances inasmuch as, upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed. Elaborating his submission, in this regard, learned counsel would contend that during trial five witnesses have been examined. While referring to the statement of prosecutrix P.W. 3, learned counsel submits that though she has made an attempt to castigate petitioner for commission of rape but a cumulative reading of her statement makes it abundantly clear that her testimony is not inspiring confidence. Learned counsel further submits that other witnesses P.W. 3 Geeta, P.W. 4 Mukesh and P.W. 5 Durga, who allegedly accompanied the prosecutrix just before the incident of rape, have not corroborated the story of prosecutrix. It is also argued that all these witnesses have turned hostile and completely repudiated the theory of rape. Learned counsel further submits that as per medical report, there is no mark of external violence or internal injury to the prosecutrix. Lastly, learned counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 4th of July 2017 and the prosecution has cited twenty-one witnesses, as such, completion of trial is not offing in near future, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.;