JUDGMENT 1. - This is bail application under Section 439 Cr. P.C. regarding an incident which took place on 16/17th August, 1984, The accused petitioner is in custody since 16.9.86. 2. An FIR bearing No. 214/84 was lodged for offence under Section 376 IPC., in which prosecutrix Smt. Kistoori stated that she was asked to accompany by co-accused Hanuman on false pretext and two other persons also accompanied him. While going, accused Hanuman put her into a room alongwith two persons and closed the room from out side. She stated that none of them committed rape with her. Thereafter Hanuman opened the door and all of them ran away. Since the other 2 persons could not be arrested, therefore, case proceeded against co-accused Hanuman alone. Hanuman was acquitted by the court of Sessions vide its judgment dated 3 9.1986. In this case Mt. Sampat PW 2, wife of son of the prosecutrix stated that on return of prosecutrix to home her mother-in-law had told her that accused Hanuman had committed rape with her. The prosecutrix P.W. 4 however, in her statement stated that while she was standing at about 5.00 P,M. near Pyau, accused Hanuman told her that his son and her daughter-in-law are calling her to cinema, therefore, she accompanied Hanuman. When they reached Cinema hall, she did not find her son and daughter in law there and Hanuman told her that they are in another cinema hall and she accompanied him again. She further stated that on the way, Hanuman ran away and one another person caught hold of her and committed rape with her. Thereafter she came to Cinema ball in search of Hanuman, but Hanuman went inside the cinema hall. Thereafter she waited of out side for him to come out and when Hanuman came out of the cinema after the show was over, she called him. but he ran away. At that time two other persons were also with Hanuman. Thereafter she lodged a report in the morning about this incident. 3. Mr. Suresh Pareek. learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the accused petitioner is in custody since 16.9.1986 and main accused Hanuman has been acquitted by the court on account of changing version of the alleged incident given by the prosecutrix herself. Thereafter she lodged a report in the morning about this incident. 3. Mr. Suresh Pareek. learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the accused petitioner is in custody since 16.9.1986 and main accused Hanuman has been acquitted by the court on account of changing version of the alleged incident given by the prosecutrix herself. Her statement is contradictory to that of her own daughter-in-law, P.W. 2, who stated in the court that the prosecutrix had told her on return to the home that accused Hanuman had committed rape with her. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Suresh Sharma has on the other hand contended that the accused was absconding for nearly 2 years and even though his name does not appear in the FIR still his identification has to be made. Till the identification is made, he does not deserve to be released on bail. My attention has been drawn to the case of Makhan Lal v. State of Rajasthan II (1984), Crimes 470 . in which the accused persons who jumped the bail in 1969 and remained absconding till 1983, was granted bail after he was arrested and had been in jail for about 31/2 months. 5. As per 3rd Proviso to sub-clause (1) of Sec 437 Cr. P.C. it is provided that "mere fact that an accused person may be required for being identified by the witnesses during investigation shall not be a sufficient ground for refusal to grant bail, if he is otherwise entitled to be released on bail and gives an under-taking that he shall comply with such directions as may be given by the court. 6. It is clear from this provision that merely because identification of accused has to be held the bail cannot be refused to him on this ground It may be pointed out that the accused petitioner is in custody since 16.9 86 and if the prosecution was really keen of getting his identification done, there was more than sufficient time for this purpose, but the identification has not been done so far. My attention has been drawn to the case of Maharaj Singh v. State of Rajasthan ( 1986 RLR 672 ) in which it was held that bail cannot be refused merely because the accused may be required for identification, if he is otherwise entitled to bail id view of 3rd Proviso to Section 437 (1) Cr. P.C. 7. My attention has been drawn to the case of Maharaj Singh v. State of Rajasthan ( 1986 RLR 672 ) in which it was held that bail cannot be refused merely because the accused may be required for identification, if he is otherwise entitled to bail id view of 3rd Proviso to Section 437 (1) Cr. P.C. 7. In this case, the name of the accused petitioner does not appear in the FIR. The incident is alleged to have taken place in the year 1984 and co-accused Hanuman has been acquitted by the trial court. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case I am of the opinion that the accused petitioner deserves to be released on bail, It is therefore, directed that the accused petitioner Ratan be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, with the condition that he shall appear in that court on all dates of hearing and whenever he is called upon to do so, during the pendency of trial against him in this case. It is also directed that the accused petitioner shall comply with all such directions of the trial court, which may be given to him from time to time. It is made clear that none of the observations made above shall cause any prejudice to the case of either of the parties, during trial.Bail granted. *******