JUDGMENT 1. - These are the fourth bail applications under Section 439, Cr.P.C. of applicants Om Beniwal and Shiv Dayal who are facing trial for offences under Sections 120-B, 366, 376(2)(G) IPC. 2. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the accused applicant contended that some co-accused have been released on bail by the Apex Court and by this Court vide order dated 17.7.98 in Cr. Appeal No. 661/98, order dated 1.2.99 In Cr. Appeal. No. 8/1999, order dated 10.5.99 in SLP (Cr) No. 339/1999, order dated 11.2.99 in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 709/99, order dated 28.8.98 in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 3261/98. He pointed out that earlier bail applications of the applicant were rejected mainly on the ground that by that time the statement of the prosecutrix had not been recorded by the trial court. Shri Choudhary pointing out that the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded by the trial court drew my attention to certain portions of her statement. He also pointed out that the prosecutrix did not complain about the rape when she met Sohan Lal Suthar, Warden. He further pointed out that before the identification parade was held in prison the photos of the applicants had been published in the newspapers and the prosecutrix admits that she had seen the applicants for the first time in the prison. He referred to the police statement of the prosecutrix dated 30.5.98 also to show the character of the prosecutrix. Shri Choudhary further pointed out that the trial of the case is held up because the trial court has ordered the impleadment of the new accused in the case and the service on those newly added accused has yet not been completed. Pointing out that the applicant is in custody for about 3 years. He prays that he be released on bail. Almost the same contentions have been raised by Shri Biri Singh. 3. Shri Bajwa, learned Sr. Advocate, Special P.P. for the State opposed the bail applications mainly on the ground that the case is of serious nature and the court should not be sympathetic towards the accused who are facing trial under Section 376(2)(G) IPC. 4. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. 3. Shri Bajwa, learned Sr. Advocate, Special P.P. for the State opposed the bail applications mainly on the ground that the case is of serious nature and the court should not be sympathetic towards the accused who are facing trial under Section 376(2)(G) IPC. 4. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. In the third Bail Applications No. 3575/99 and 4118/99 of the applicants, this court had observed that bail application of the applicants can be considered after the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded. This Court directed that the prosecutrix be examined as a first witness and the trial Judge to consider the application for bail of the applicant afresh after the statement of the prosecutrix is recorded. 5. After the order dated 22.10.99, the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded. Thus, obviously, there is change in the circumstances. It is evident that the trial of the case is not likely to be completed in near future as the new accused have been added and on their appearance the evidence will have to be recorded afresh. Moreover, some of the accused have already been granted ball by this court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, I think it a fit case in which the accused applicants should be released on bail. 6. I, therefore, accept both the bail applications and order that applicants Om Beniwal S/o Shri Bhagirath and Shiv Dayal S/o Shri Prem Sukil Sihag be released on bail provided each of them executes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever ordered to do so till the completion of the trial.Bail application allowed. *******