Honble SHETHNA, J.–Present petitioner accused Monga Singh Charanjeet Singh has filed this bail petition before this Court after the rejection of his bail petition before the trial Court on 10.8.98. (2). Learned counsel Shri Bhadu for the petitioner submitted that against the petitioner there is no allegation that he committed rape. Only allegation is that he caught hold of complainant Raja Singh husband of prosecutrix, therefore, the petitioner be enlarged on bail. He submitted that the role played by the petitioner is similar to the role played by co-accused Chandu Ram, who has been granted bail by this Court (Mohd. Yamin, J.) on 27.9.96., therefore, the petitioner be enlarged on bail. (3). It is true that Chandu Ram has been released on bail by this Court but he was granted bail on 27.9.96, almost more than two years from today. The learned trial Judge was of the opinion that if the present accused petitioner and other co-accused had not caught hold of the complainant then Kuldeep Singh would not have committed rape on Virpal Kaur, wife of the complainant. No doubt it is true that there is no allegation against the present accused petitioner that he has committed rape but without his aid and assistance of other co-accused it would not have been possible for the main accused Kuldeep Singh to commit rape on Veerpal Kaur. It is also true that Chandu Ram has been enlarged on bail, who has played the similar role, which is alleged to have been played by the present accused but the difference in the case of the present accused petitioner is that after the commission of an offence, he absconded for almost two years. Under the circumstances, if the trial Court has not thought it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail then this Court would not grant bail. (4). One more submission was made by learned counsel Shri Bhadu for the petitioner that main accused Kuldeep Singh, who is alleged to have committed rape on Virpal Kaur, has been enlarged on bali by the learned Magistrate, Sangriya on 7.1.97 therefore, the present accused be also released on bail. (4). One more submission was made by learned counsel Shri Bhadu for the petitioner that main accused Kuldeep Singh, who is alleged to have committed rape on Virpal Kaur, has been enlarged on bali by the learned Magistrate, Sangriya on 7.1.97 therefore, the present accused be also released on bail. It is true that main accused Kuldeep Singh, who is alleged to have committed rape on Virpal Kaur, was released on bail by the learned A.C.J.M. but he was granted bail on technical ground like not filing charge-sheet within 90 days as provided under Sec.167 (2) Cr. P.C. (5). Last submission made by Mr. Bhadu, learned counsel for the appellant, was that prosecutrix is a married lady aged about 22 years, therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of rape but it was a case of consent. This argument of Mr. Bhadu cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in this case the prosecution version is that the complainant was going with his wife from one place to another but he failed to get bus, therefore, he took lift in the vehicle of driver Kuldeep Singh, who was known to him and when he and his wife were going in the vehicle of Kuldeep, they took it to other place and there three other persons including the present accused not only caught hold of him but gave kick and fist blow and also robbed Rs. 175/- from his pocket. The allegation of the prosecutrix is that after committing rape, Kuldeep Singh snatched her earings and pendant. That, the accused has alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 363,376, 342 and 382 IPC read with 3 (1) (XII) and 3(1) (X) of the SC/ST Act. Under the circumstances when a married woman belonging to Scheduled Caste is not only raped but robbed also, in my opinion, it is not proper to release the accused on bail though main accused Kuldeep Singh and other co-accused Chandu Ram have been enlarged on bail by the trial Court and by this Court, respectively. (6). One more thing which is required to be stated is that one more co-accused Laxman is still absconding and he has not been arrested so far. Hence, I do not see any reason to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly this bail petition is dismissed. (7). (6). One more thing which is required to be stated is that one more co-accused Laxman is still absconding and he has not been arrested so far. Hence, I do not see any reason to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly this bail petition is dismissed. (7). At this stage, a request was made by learned counsel Shri Bhadu to direct the trial Court to expedite the trial. Instead of directing the trial Court, it would be proper if the accused himself makes such application before the trial Court to expedite the trial. I am sure that as and when such application is made before the trial Court by the present accused, considering the back log of other cases and all other circumstances, the trial Court will expedite the trial as early as possible.