Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. prays for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 71 of 9.11.2003 P.S. Khemkaran Karan, Tarn Taran under Sections 376/342/506 IPC and also in pursuance to the order dated 25.5.2004 passed by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge. The ld. Addl. Sessions Judge in his order dated 25.5.2004 has observed that the prosecutrix has levelled incriminating allegations against the petitioners Vipin Kumar, Ramandeep Singh and Sarbjit Singh although these persons were found to be innocent by the police during investigation. The prosecutrix categorically stated that the accused-petitioners committed her rape turn by turn. On that basis, the petitioners have been summoned under Section 376(2)(g) of the Code by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 25.5.2004. The statement of the prosecutrix has also been placed on record as annexure P.3. Thereafter petitioners filed application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. which has been rejected by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge on 30.8.2004 by observing that it is not the discretion of the police to declare any person innocent. Moreover, the prosecutrix was not associated with the investigation. It was further observed that the petitioners were involved in a serious case of gang rape and no lenient view can be taken by granting them pre-arrest bail. 2. When the case came up for consideration before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner had taken time to place on record statement of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel has placed on record statement of the prosecutrix dated 25.5.2004 which in fact is already on record as Annexure P- 3. He has also placed on record matriculation certificate of the prosecutrix showing her date of birth to be 18.12.1987. 3. After hearing the learned counsel at a considerable length I find that no case for exercise of discretion under Section 438 of the Code is made out because the petitioners are alleged to have committed a heinous offence of gang rape with the prosecutrix who appears to be a minor. Such like activities are on the rise in the society and no lenient view can be taken by arming such accused with a cushioned order of pre-arrest bail. Such like activities are on the rise in the society and no lenient view can be taken by arming such accused with a cushioned order of pre-arrest bail. On the one hand their custodial interrogation would be necessary and on the other hand the society is to be guarded against such accused in order to avoid commission of any such offence in future. The enquiry report submitted by the police to the effect that the petitioners were innocent cannot be considered as final in favour of the petitioners because the police does not have the last word with regard to the guilt of the accused. The power to record findings with regard to the guilt of an accused has been given to the criminal Courts. In this regard, a reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of H.S. Bains v. U.T. Chandigarh, AIR 1980 SC 1883. The provisions of Section 376(2)(g) read with explanation make it abundantly clear that even in cases where the accused is not directly involved in the act of rape he might have still committed the offence of gang rape. Such an accused might have stood as a guard or might have driven the vehicle in which the prosecutrix had been kidnapped or subjected to rape. Once the legislation has attached such a seriousness to the offence of gang rape, there would be no scope for entertaining the prayer for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code. 4. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.