JUDGMENT 1. - Both these applications may be disposed of by a common order, as they arises from the same incident and FIR No.399 of 1992, PS. Bassi. 2. The charge against the applicant-Badri is that he committed rape on Smt. Bhonri Devi along with the co-accused, Gyarsa. So far applicants Ram Karan, Ram Sukh and Shravan are concerned the charge against them is that they alleged that the applicants Ram Karan and Shravan caught hold Smt. Bhonri Devi's husband Mohan, while Ram Sukh-applicant along with Badri and Shravan caught hold Smt. Bhonri Devi 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that a false case of rape has been made and the entire story about the commission of rape is imaginary and unnatural. The learned counsel further submitted that Ram Karan, Ram Sukh and Badri are real brothers and one cannot believe that all the three brothers would have joined to commit the rape in the manner alleged by the prosecution. It was also contended that the report was made after in-ordinate delay and the medical report does not support the prosecution case. Lastly, it was contended that Mohan, the husband of the prosecutrix, has been specifically stated that he had seen applicant Badri committing rape on his wife and that FSL report has been deliberately suppressed by the prosecution. 4. On the other hand, it was contended by the learned counsel for the C.B.I., assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, that the statement of Smt. Bhonri Devi is consistent throughout right from lodging the report. Her statement has been recorded by various investigating agencies from time to time and she had been consistently saying that rape was committed on her by the applicant-Badri and the co-accused Gyarsa, while other accused assisted in the commission of the offence. It was also contended that the manner, in which, the first information report could be lodged by the prosecutrix, goes to show that there is no occasion to doubt in her veracity. However, immediately after the incident, she narrated the whole story to Smt. Raseela Sharma and FIR could be lodged after getting the assistance from her higher officers, otherwise the case would not be registered by the local police. However, immediately after the incident, she narrated the whole story to Smt. Raseela Sharma and FIR could be lodged after getting the assistance from her higher officers, otherwise the case would not be registered by the local police. It was also contended that this Court has considered the various aspects of the case in the order dated December 17, 1993 passed by this Court on the bail application of Gyarsa under Section 439, Cr.P.C. and application of Ram Karan and Ram Sukh and Badri under section 438, Cr.P.C. 5. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. I also perused the case diary and the order dated December 17, 1993 was considered minutely. I need not re-consider the facts and circumstances of the case in detail as they have been fully discussed in my order dated December 17, 1993. As already stated earlier, the charge against petitioner Badri that he committed rape on Smt. Bhonri Devi. The charge against him is consistent in the statement of Smt. Bhonri Devi alongwith Gyarsa, whose case was considered by this Court in the order dated December 17, 1993. Gyarsa's application was rejected by this Court by a detailed order and in my view those grounds are equally applicable so far the case of the petitioner-Badri is concerned. Therefore, I am not inclined to release the petitioner Badri on bail and his bail application is, therefore, rejected. 6. So far petitioners Ram Karan, Ram Sukh and Shravan are concerned, their case stands on different footing. There is no allegation that anyone of them has committed rape on Smt. Bhonri Devi and the charge is of abatement. I do not like to express any opinion, so far as the merits of the case is concerned and as to whether the story given by the prosecution is unnatural or un-believable, but taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, I think it just and proper to release them on bail on certain conditions under section 439, Cr.P.C. 7. It is, therefore, directed that the accused petitioners (i) Ram Karan adopted son of Shri Mangilal (Birth son of Shri Gopal), (ii) Ram Sukh S/o Copal, and (iii) Shravan Kumar Sharma S/o Ram Pratap Sharma shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Ccairt with the stipulation to appear before that Court or any other Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as when called upon during the pendency of the trial/inquiry/investigation, as the case may be, against them in this case. The bail shall be subject to the following conditions : (i) that they shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses; (ii) that they will maintain peace during the period of their bail; If any of the aforesaid conditions is violated, specially, any attempt is made to tamper with prosecution witnesses, it shall be open to the prosecuting agency or the complainant to move a fresh application before the trial Court for cancellation of bait and the trial Court shall be free to cancel the bail, in accordance with law, if such case is made out, without making any reference to this Court. 8. Both the applications are disposed of, as indicated above.Bail application partially accepted. *******