JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This third bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner after recording of the statement of the prosecutrix and on the ground that the co-accused Ramjilal has been released on bail under Section 439 Cr.PC. by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on January 12, 2011. The first bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this court on 4.1.2011 and following order was passed : "Learned counsel for the accused petitioner prays for withdrawal of the bail application with the liberty that the learned trial court be directed to record the statement of the prosecutrix within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and thereafter the petitioner will be at liberty to move fresh bail application before the learned trial court which is not opposed by the learned PP In view of the above, the bail application stands dismissed as withdrawn. However, the trial court is directed to record the statement of prosecutrix within the aforesaid period, if possible." 3. On Feb. 1, 2011, the accused petitioner filed second bail application on the ground that co-accused Ramjilal has been released on bail under Section 439 Cr.PC. by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 12.1.2011. The second bail application was decided by this Court on Feb. 17, 2011 as the learned counsel for the accused petitioner made a prayer for withdrawal of the bail application. On Feb. 17, 2011, this court passed the following order : "Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he may be permitted to withdraw this bail application with liberty to move bail application before the learned trial court as directed by this court vide order dated 4.1.2011 passed in S.B. Cr. Misc. bail Application No. 10848/10. He has also stated that he has moved this bail application on the ground that co-accused has been released on bail by this Court. Learned counsel is permitted to withdraw the bail application. Accordingly, the criminal misc. bail application. stands dismissed as being withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid." 4. The accused petitioner further filed bail application before the trial court and the trial court rejected the bail application on Feb. Learned counsel is permitted to withdraw the bail application. Accordingly, the criminal misc. bail application. stands dismissed as being withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid." 4. The accused petitioner further filed bail application before the trial court and the trial court rejected the bail application on Feb. 21, 2011 observing as under : " i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd bl izdj.k esa izkfFkZ;k@vfHk;qDrk ds fo:) ckfydk lq/kkj x`g esa nkf[ky ukckfyx ihfM+rk lqeu dks egsUnz uked O;fDr ls fefyHkxr dj voS/k :i ls eqykdkr djokdj mDr egsUnz }kjk ihfM+rk ds lkFk uktk;t 'kkjhfjd laca/k cuk;s tkus esa enn djus o mDr egsUnz dks pksjh Nqis ihfM+rk ls feykus ds vijk/k dk vkjksi gSA bl izdkj izkfFkZ;k@vfHk;qDrk ds fo:) Hkk0na0la0 dh /kkjk 376 lifBr /kkjk 109 ds vijk/k dk vkjksi gSA ;|fi bl U;k;ky; ds le{k ihfM+rk dk eq[; ijh{k.k lk{kh ds :i es ys[kc) fd;k tk pqdk gS ijUrq mDr xokg ls izdj.k esa vHkh ftjg gksuk ckdh gS rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k ihfM+rk dh lk{; ls izkfFkZ;k ds fo:) >wBk ekeyk cuk;k x;k gS ,slk izdV ugha gksrk gSA bl izdkj izkfFkZ;k@vfHk;qDrk ds fo:) vkjksfir vijks/kksa dh xaHkhj izd`fr dks ns[krs gq, ge izdj.k esa izkfFkZ;k@vfHk;qDrk dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr ugha le>rs gSaA ifj.kkeLo:i izkfFkZ;k@vfHk;qDrk dh vkSj ls izLrqr ;g f}rh; tekur izkFkZuk i= ,rn~ }kjk vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA " 5. The accused petitioner filed this third bail application before this Court on Feb. 22, 2011. 6. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner has contended that the accused petitioner is absolutely innocent and she has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. From the FIR and evidence. collected during the course of the investigation no case is made out against the accused petitioner. The accused petitioner is not named in the FIR and there is no evidence of abetment or criminal conspiracy is available on record and only on the basis of fact that the petitioner was fourth class employee in the premises, she has been charge sheeted in this case. Further it has been contended that the co-accused of this case Ramjilal has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.1.2011 and being lady case of the petitioner is on better footing and on the ground of parity this bail application may be considered for grant of bail. 7. Mr. Further it has been contended that the co-accused of this case Ramjilal has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.1.2011 and being lady case of the petitioner is on better footing and on the ground of parity this bail application may be considered for grant of bail. 7. Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has contended that -there are serious allegations against the accused petitioner and the prosecutrix in her statement implicated her name in committing the offence by the other accused person of rape. Other persons named by the prosecutrix in her statement are still to be examined by the prosecution. In these circumstances it was prayed that the accused petitioner should not be released on bail at this stage. At the most the trial . Court may be directed to conclude the trial at the earliest. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced h;' the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the statement of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has in clear terms taken the name of the accused petitioner who has made arrangement of getting the co-accused to contact the prosecutrix in the Rescue Home where the prosecutrix was lodged. The Public Prosecutor has stated that there are 27 persons in the list of witnesses to be produced in the court. At this stage, the accused petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail, looking to the role played by the accused petitioner while doing duties as Class IV in the Rescue Home, where the prosecutrix was lodged. 9. For these reasons, this third bail application filed by the accused petitioner stands rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial within a period of six months. It will be open for the accused petitioner to file fresh bail application before the trial court if the trial is not completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this court and the trial court shall record the reasons for not concluding the trial within the aforesaid period.Application Rejected. *******