Honble MEENA, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the case diary. (2). Mr. Balwada submits that statements of Jagdish, husband of prosecutrix were recorded on 15.6.96 and 16.6.96, but he has not named the accused. Similarly, the statements of Dharamraj, son of prosecutrix, were recorded on 16.6.96 and 25.6.96. He has also not named the accused petitioner Meghraj. Even prosecutrix herself has not named the accused, in her statement U/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Only one Moti, in his statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C., has stated that accused Meghraj Singh was also present and standing near the jeep. (3). In view of this, it was directed on 7.10.96 to hold identification parade to identify Meghraj Singh. Identification parade was conducted, and prosecutrix Dhapu could not identify the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor has not controverted these facts after perusal of the case diary. (4). Considering the fact that no allegation of rape has been levelled against him nor he has been identified by the prosecutrix, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner U/s. 438 Cr.P.C. (5). The SHO/IO, Police Station Devali, District Tonk, in FIR No. 144/96, is therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of accused petitioner Meghraj Singh son of Kalyan Singh, he shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs.Thirty thousand) with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 15,000/- each, to the satisfaction of SHO concerned, on the following conditions : 1. that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required: 2. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any induce- ment, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court, or any Police Officer ; and 3. That the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.