Judgment 1. THE applicant Mahabeer is involved in an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. THE case crime was registered in P. S. Auras, district Unnao as case crime No. 78 of 1985. 2. THE prosecution case, mentioned in the First Information Report, briefly stated, has been that on 28-6-1985 at about 5 p.m., the applicant-accused committed rape on Km. Urmila, daughter of Hira Lal Chamar, once in Gonda and thereafter in another house and that on alarm of Km. Urmila, her father, Chotey and Mauji reached there and they witnessed the occurrence. The applicant set up his defence case in the present application that Km. Urmila has been a girl of loose morals, she plucked some mangoes from the orchard of the accused for which she was strongly reprimanded ; and that the applicant has been falsely implicated on account of his reprimanding the girl. 3. IT is not disputed that the applicant has been a history sheeter and a number of criminal cases are pending disposal against him. 4. TNE medical report indicated that Km. Urmila has been a girl of about 12 years of age. Her periform in the wrist was found united. Lower end of radius and ulna was not fused. Her upper end of radius ulna and medial epicondyle were also not fused. She was medically examined on 29-6-1985 at 10.40 A.M. when her lebia majora and vovora found swollen, her hymen was torn ; the tear was extending laterally on right side and one inch deep in vagina. The vaginal smear which was sent was found dead and living spermatozoa. The victim was 12 years old minor girl who belonged to a Harijan family. The applicant had his past history for which he was history- sheeted and for which he is being prosecuted. The father of the girl has been an eye witness and he was not expected to stake the reputation and honour of his daughter and family for the simple reason that the girl was reprimanded by the applicant for plucking mangoes from his orchard. Even though the witnesses Mauji and Chotey filed affidavits in support of the applicant, there remains the testimony of the girl and her father for scrutiny in trial. 5. THE injury report and the Radiologist's report go on to show that a 12 years old girl had suffered some force in her private part. 6. Even though the witnesses Mauji and Chotey filed affidavits in support of the applicant, there remains the testimony of the girl and her father for scrutiny in trial. 5. THE injury report and the Radiologist's report go on to show that a 12 years old girl had suffered some force in her private part. 6. THE affidavit which has been filed in support of the application was sworn by one Radha Krishna who averred as follows :- 1. That the deponent is pairokar of Mahabeer and is well conversant with the facts of the case. 2. That para 1 to 4 of the accompanying application of bail are true to the knowledge of the deponent. The applicant relied on the case of Nimeon Sangma v. Home Secretary Govt. of Meghalaya, AIR 1979 SC 1518 . This was a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in view of alleged illegal detention of a large number of persons under guise of the judicial process. The petitioners no. 3 and 4 were directed to be released by Hon'ble Supreme Court on their own bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court subject to their reporting to the nearest police station once every fortnight and appearing in Court whenever called upon to do so to take their trial. As about the petitioner no. 1, there was an affidavit on behalf of the State that no such person was in custody, and it was directed that the matter would be scrutinized further by the State. Subsequently, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court "that we direct the State to consent to release all persons who have been in custody for over six months and whose trials have not commenced or against whom charge-sheets have not been laid." 7. IN pursuance of the aforesaid observations, the Circular Letter No. 104-VI1I g-38 Adm. G. dated Sept. 6, 1979 was issued with certain directions and the relevant portion is contained in clause (a) which reads as follows : "The subordinate criminal courts shall get a periodical list of under trial prisoners pertaining to their courts prepared fortnightly and suo rnoto pass orders releasing undertrials prisoner who may be in jail for over six months on bail or personal bonds as the circumstances may require." 8. IT is obvious that the facts of the cited case which was in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus were different from the facts of the instant case. Certain observations were made in the cited case, directing the State to consent to release all persons who have been in custody for over six months and whose trials had not commenced or against whom charge-sheets were not laid. The observations were made in the cited case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court because of unnecessary delays in investigations and trials. The facts and circumstances of most of the cases differ. IT has become the tendency of the criminals to exploit and circumvent the observations of the Courts and to circumvent law to their own advantage. Even the Investigating Officers are found to have avoided submitting charge- sheets within the stipulated period, knowing that the delay would automatically entitle the criminals to obtain bail. They cause this delay for reasons best known to them. In the instant case, the occurrence had taken place on 28-6-1985 and the notice of this application was given on 12-9-1985, but the application was presented in Court on 18-11-1985. The possibility cannot be ruled out that something might have been manoeuvred for delaying the disposal of this application with a view to taking the advantage of the aforesaid Circular Letter. 9. THE observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have to be followed in the light that the persons in custody try to circumvent and exploit the situation and position of law and they too manoeuvre in this office to their advantage. Moreover, the State Government was directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to consent to release all such persons, but the State Government does not appear to have taken any lead in the matter. Rather the Court issued the Circular Letter observing that the steps, related in the Circular Letter, might be taken to achieve the desired result. In clause (b) of the Circular Letter, it was observed that the Courts concerned could pass suitable orders in cases of such under trials after the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate brought to their notice the cases of under trials over six months. In clause (b) of the Circular Letter, it was observed that the Courts concerned could pass suitable orders in cases of such under trials after the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate brought to their notice the cases of under trials over six months. It was further mentioned in the said Circulr Letter that the State Government had been requested to send for list of under trials from the different jails fortnightly and move an application before the Court having jurisdiction to order for the release of the under trials who were in jail for over six months without imposing any condition. At the same time, it was observed that in the event of moving of such applications the Courts should pass suitable orders in the matter consistent with the mandate of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. All these observations shows that the merits of each case, for the purposes of bail, have to be considered on the tacts and circumstances of each such case. In the instant case, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 10. AS such, this application for bail is rejected. Application rejected.