JUDGEMENT R. L. Khurana J. :- The two petitioners who are respectively Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and Langari posted at police post Pangana, Police Station Karsog, have approached this Court by virtue of present petition under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure for being released on bail. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is this. On 31-12-1995 at about 4.00 P.M. the petitioner Chuni Lal who was posted as Incharge, police post Pangana had visited the house of the complainant Mast Ram in village Bakhohal. The complainant Mast Ram at that time was not present. His wife Smt. Kubja Devi of about 28 years of age was present. She was asked by the petitioner Chuni Lal that she and Banti Devi should give him a case under the Excise Act. He further required her and Smt. Banti Devi to visit the police post. On the same day, at about 8.00 P.M. the petitioner Khub Ram, a langari in the police post Pangana, went to the house of complainant Mast Ram and conveyed the message that Smt. Kubja Devi and Smt. Banti Devi should immediately report at the police post as desired by the petitioner Chuni Lal. He also called Smt. Banti Devi to the house of Smt. Kubja. Both the above named ladies were taken by him to the residence of petitioner Chuni Lal instead of taking them to the police post. The petitioner Chuni Lal who was not present, came there soonafter. The two petitioners took the two ladies to the kitchen where they were compelled to take liquor. The two petitioners also consumed liquor. They gave beatings to the two ladies. Thereafter, the petitioner Khub Ram took Smt. Kubja Devi while the petitioner Chuni Lal took Smt. Banti Devi to two separate rooms where they committed rape on them. During the course of rape, the bangles of Smt. Banti Devi were broken and her earring also fell down. Both the ladies sustained injuries. The complainant Mast Ram, on returning home and finding his wife absent, alongwith the husband of Smt. Banti Devi carried out a search for them. They were able to find the two ladies in the house of the petitioner Chuni Lal. Both the ladies were rescued and recovered. There was a great resentment amongst the members of public. The complainant Mast Ram, on returning home and finding his wife absent, alongwith the husband of Smt. Banti Devi carried out a search for them. They were able to find the two ladies in the house of the petitioner Chuni Lal. Both the ladies were rescued and recovered. There was a great resentment amongst the members of public. The Superintendent of Police was telephonically informed and on his intervention a case under Section 376, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered vide F.I.R. No. 5/96 on 1-1-1996. 3. During the course of investigation, bath the ladies were got medically examined. The Doctor found as many as five injuries on the person of Smt. Banti Devi. A dead spermatozoa was also detected in the vaginal swab. The Doctor opined that Smt. Banti Devi was subjected to sexual intercourse within the last 12 hours. In the case of Smt. Kubja Devi, her shirt and salwar were found torn at different places and there were blood stains on such clothes. The injuries were found on her thigh and the fingers of her hand. The police also took into possession blood stained scrappings from the house of petitioner Chuni Lal. The broken pieces of bangles along with one ear-ring of Smt. Banti Devi were also recovered from the house of petitioner Chuni Lal. All such articles, namely the broken pieces of bangles and ear-ring were identified by Amru, the husband of Smt. Banti Devi. 4. Both the petitioners were arrested and subjected to medical examination. They were found to be capable of committing sexual intercourse. 5. On having been produced before the learned Magistrate, both the petitioners were remanded to judicial custody. The application for bail made by the two petitioners before the Sessions Judge, Mandi was dismissed on 10-1-1996. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the case against the two petitioners is false. Both the petitioner have been implicated in the present case due to enmity. He has further contended that the material collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation does not disclose the commission of the offence as there is no eye witness nor the attenuating circumstances collectively corroborate the alleged happening on the date and time alleged. Both the petitioner have been implicated in the present case due to enmity. He has further contended that the material collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation does not disclose the commission of the offence as there is no eye witness nor the attenuating circumstances collectively corroborate the alleged happening on the date and time alleged. Further case of the petitioners is that both the two ladies, namely, Smt. Kubja Devi and Smt. Banti Devi as also Amru husband of Smt. Banti Devi vide their affidavits sworn before a Magistrate on 12-1-1996, have denied the occurrence and the prosecution story. 8. On the other hand, Shri V. K. Verma, learned Assistant Advocate General, while opposing the bail application has pointed out that the offence of rape has been committed by the two petitioners who are public servants. The evidence collected during the course of investigation shows the commission of such offence by the two petitioners and that and reliance can be placed on the affidavits Annexures P-1 to P-3 inasmuch as the same have not been properly attested in accordance with law and they are not affidavits in the eyes of law. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (AIR 1978 SC 179) : (1978 Cri LJ 120) while dealing with the scope of Section 439(1), Code of Criminal Procedure has laid down the following overriding considerations for the exercise of judicial discretion while granting or refusing bail :- "(i) the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; (ii) the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; (iii) the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the likelihood of repeating the offences of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; (v) the likelihood of tampering with witnesses and (vi) the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many variable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out. 10. It was further held that the two paramount considerations, viz., likelihood of accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the prosecution evidence relate to ensuring a fair trial of the case in a court of justice. 10. It was further held that the two paramount considerations, viz., likelihood of accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the prosecution evidence relate to ensuring a fair trial of the case in a court of justice. It is, therefore, essential that due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. 11. This Court in Rattan Kumar Bhardwaj v. State of M. P., (1994 (1) SLJ 86) while dealing with the bail for the offence of rape by public servants; has held in paragraphs 12 to 14 as under :- "12. The prevailing lawlessness and increase in crime rate requires the matter to be seriously considered. Normally, we observe that rape, molestation and eveteasing are common offences, against minor girls, young and even married women. The experience of the victims is indeed traumatic. Rape victims not only suffer humiliation, but also undergo untold miseries. Unmarried victims lose prospects of marriage and married victims face desertion by husbands. Such is the fate and after effect of the ghastly crime committed by sex perverts little realizing the consequence of the wrong committed by them. Even a woman of loose morals has self respect and dignity. She also cannot be violated by man at his pleasure. On the contrary a male dominated society often does not treat rapist with contempt. When released on bail, he moves in society like any other person. 13. It is true that while granting bail the Courts should be liberal. The accused has a right to bail under Article 21 of the Constitution which provides that no person shall he deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. However, the question of grant of bail to the accused depends upon the circumstances of each case and the factors which the court would take into consideration in a given case cannot be put in a straightjacket, hut some of these have been spelled out by the apex Court in various cases. However, the question of grant of bail to the accused depends upon the circumstances of each case and the factors which the court would take into consideration in a given case cannot be put in a straightjacket, hut some of these have been spelled out by the apex Court in various cases. (See : Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, AIR 1987 SC 1613 : (1987 Cri LJ 1872); Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179 : (1978 Cri LJ 129); Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753 : (1983 Cri LJ 1096); Gagan Bihari Samal v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) JT (SC)63 and Harpal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361 : (1981 Cri LJ 1). 14. In addition to the above, it may be stated here that when cases of rape come up for trial, the courts do not insist upon corroboration if the evidence of the prosecutrix is credible and worthy of belief. In my view, rightly so. Hardly a woman, muchless a minor or young un-married girl would venture to experience herself to scrutiny in a Court by bringing false allegations of sex crime and destroy her reputation. Indeed false accusation of rape are rare. (See : Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983 Cri LJ 1096) (supra) and Pirthi Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 702 : (1989 Cri L 1841).". 12. In the present case, it is significant to note that both the petitioners are public servants belonging to the police Department. Being police officers, they, therefore, hold sufficient influence. A perusal of record of investigation reveals that a case could not be registered immediately after the occurrence and such a case came to be registered only on the intervention of Superintendent of Police Mandi when there was an agitation by the members of the public. Therefore, there is every likelihood that the two petitioners, if released on bail are likely to tamper with the evidence by exercising their powers and influence being the police officials. This may not result into a fair trial. The bail application of the two petitioners, as such, is liable to be rejected on this short ground alone. 13. Much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the three affidavits dated 12-1-1996, copies of which are Ex. This may not result into a fair trial. The bail application of the two petitioners, as such, is liable to be rejected on this short ground alone. 13. Much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the three affidavits dated 12-1-1996, copies of which are Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3. These affidavits are purported to have been sworn by the two ladies Smt. Kubja and Smt. Banti Devi as also the husband of Smt. Banti Devi denying the occurrence and the prosecution story. A perusal of these affidavits shows that the same bear only an endorsement "attested" by the Executive Magistrate. 14. An affidavit is required to be sworn and affirmed by the person making it before the authorities enumerated under sub-Section (1) of Section 279, Code of Criminal Procedure. Undisputedly, an affidavit under the Code of Criminal Procedure can be sworn and affirmed before an Executive Magistrate. The affidavits Annexures P-1 to P-3 do not contain the requisite endorsement required to be made by the authority administering the oath to the deponents. Such affidavits bear only an endorsement as "attested" by the Magistrate. The rules with record to attestation of affidavits are contained in Volume IV, Chapter 12-D of the High Court rules and orders. According to the rule 11 of these rules, a person making affidavit if not personally known to the Magistrate, and this thing has to be specified by the Magistrate at the foot of the affidavit with the description of the person by whom the identification was made. As per rule 12, the Magistrate has to append a certificate at the foot of the affidavit to the effect of making such an affidavit before him. In the present case, as stated above, the affidavits at Annexures P-1 to P-3 simply bear the word "attested" and under this word are the signatures of the Magistrate attesting the same. Such affidavits do not show if all the affidavits were affirmed by the concerned deponents before the Magistrate or that the contents thereof were read not to them who accepted the same to he correct. Unless it is so done, such affidavits lack proper attestation and no authenticity can be attached to these and same have to be rule out of evidence. 15. Unless it is so done, such affidavits lack proper attestation and no authenticity can be attached to these and same have to be rule out of evidence. 15. In Ravel Singh v. State of Punjab, ((1974) 76 PLR 402) wherein the affidavits relied upon by the prosecution contained the endorsement "attested" or the endorsement "R.O. and attested", it was held that the same were not affidavits in the eyes of law and no reliance could be placed thereon. To the similar effect, it has been held by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Punjab v. Partap Singh, 1978 Chand LR (Punjab and Haryana) 83. 16. Since the affidavits Annexures P-1 to P-3 have not been attested in accordance with the prescribed rules, the same are no affidavits in the eyes of law and, therefore, no reliance can be placed thereon. 17. Considering the material collected during the course of investigation. I am satisfied that there exists reasonable grounds for believing that the two accused are guilty of the commission of the offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code. At this stage, this Court is not required to go into the question of evidentiary value to be attached to the statements of the various witnesses recorded by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. Under the circumstances, I do not find it to be a fit case for the exercise of the discretion of bail in favour of the two petitioners. 18. As a result, the present petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.