JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Sections 363 and 376, IPC. This bail application has been moved under special circumstances, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. It is contended that the petitioner is in jail for the last 14 months or so and the statement of the prosecutrix has not been recorded so far. It was also contended that as per the statement of Dr. Purushottam Jhanwar (P.W. 2), the age of the prosecutrix was between 15 to 16 years and his opinion was based on x-ray report. However, in cross- examination, the witness has admitted that the determination of age on x-ray report was not conclusive and there could be a variation of two years. Another doctor - Dr. Shobba Goyal (P.W. 4) has opined the age of the prosecutrix between 12 to 25 years. She did not find any injury on her private parts. 3. From the various order-sheets of the trial Court, it transpires that charges were framed on March 29, 1993. Thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time, but the prosecutrix has not appeared for her statement. The summons were sent to the SHO, but they were not returned, after service or otherwise, on several dates. Then, it was reported that she has shifted from her native village and Prosecuting Agency and IO was directed to get her served on her new address, but without any success. Only four witnesses have been examined so far. In these circumstances, this Court has been left with no option, but to release the petitioner on bail under section 439, 4. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused-petitioner Jawan Singh S/o. Shri Apji be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees TWenty Thousand only) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the stipulation to appear in that Court or any other Court or each and every date of hearing and as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial against him in this case. The bail shall also be subject to the following condition:- (i) that he shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. The bail shall also be subject to the following condition:- (i) that he shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. If the aforesaid condition is violated, it shall be open for the trial Court to cancel his bail, in accordance with law, without making any reference to this Court. 5. Before parting with, I would like to express my concern that it has been noticed by this Court that the SHOs of the concerned Police Stations, to whom the summons of the witnesses are sent, do not pay proper attention. Even the summons are not sent back after service or otherwise. They should not forget that it is their official duty to comply with the orders of the Court and without their cooperation, a criminal trial, in which the accused is in jail, cannot be concluded. They should now be vigilant that summons are served on the witnesses in time and their attendance is procured on the date fixed for recording their evidence to avoid delay in the trial. It is, therefore, necessary that they should change their attitude. The concerned District Superintendent of Police is, therefore, directed to issue a circular to call the In charge of the Police Stations to be vigilant in getting summons served on the witnesses and give priority to comply with the orders of the courts. If any lapses are shown by them, Departmental action should be taken against them. In future, I expect and believe that due attention shall be given by them, in this direction. 6. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is directed to sent a copy of this order to the trial Court, as well as, the concerned Superintendent of Police for doing needful. *******