JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers made available to me on record. 2. This is second application for bail; the first application for bail was rejected by this Court on July 20, 1994 with liberty to file fresh application for bail after the statement of prosecutrix is recorded. 3. The petitioner is facing trial in Sessions Case No. 156/1992 in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 3, Kota (Camp at Ramganj Mandi) for offences under Sections 376,342/34 IPC. 4. It appears that the petitioner was on bail during trial and he did not appear in trial-court on 26.9.1991. The trial court, therefore, forfeited the bail-bonds and issued non-bailable warrant to secure his attendance/presence. However, the petitioner surrendered before the trial-court on July 14, 1994 and moved an application for bail before him. The learned Judge, rejected the said application for bail vide order dated July 16, 1994. The petitioner thereafter, approached this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail-application No. 3293/1994 and this Court while rejecting the said application on 20th July, 1994 gave an opportunity to the petitioner to file a fresh application for bail after the statement of the prosecutrix is recorded. Now, this second application for bail has been filed on the ground that the where-abouts of the prosecutrix are not known and summons were sent to her but the same have been returned un-served. Certain copies of the order-sheets of the trial-court and a certified copy of the summon issued to the witnesses Smt. Nan Bai has been placed on record to substantiate this contention-that the prosecutrix Smt. Nan Bai, did not appear in the Court and the summons sent to her returned unserved with a report that her where-abouts arc not traceable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought a certified copy of summon issued to the prosecutrix after the order dated 20.7.1994 which shows that she has not again been served. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner should be released on bail under S. 439 Cr.P.C. 5. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to accept this application for bail. 6. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioner namely; Naeem son of Gulam Mohd. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner should be released on bail under S. 439 Cr.P.C. 5. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to accept this application for bail. 6. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioner namely; Naeem son of Gulam Mohd. R/o Dhaba Deh, P.S. Modak, District; Kota, shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/'- each to the satisfaction of learned trial-court for his appearance before him on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so, subject to the following condition:- 1. that the petitioner shall not leave the State of Rajasthan, without previous permission of the Court; However, it is made clear' that if any proceeding under Section 446 Cr.P.C. is initiated against the accused petitioner, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without being influenced by this Court. *******