Judgment Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—The present application has been filed by the applicant, who is victim of the offence registered vide C.R. No. I-7/2010 with Limbdi Police Station for the offences under Sections 376(1), 114 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which has been numbered as Special Atrocity Case No. 29 of 2010 pending before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Limbdi, District : Surendranagar for the prayer regarding the transfer of case on the grounds mentioned in the application as well as amendment, which has been tendered. 2. Heard learned Counsel, Ms. Shilpa Shah for the applicant, learned A.P.P., Mr. K.P. Rawal for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 7 and learned Counsel, Mr. Ashish Dagli for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6-accused. 3. Learned Counsel, Ms. Shah does not press this application for the transfer of the case. However, she submitted that alternate prayer may be considered such as (i) the trial may directed to be conducted in Camera; (ii) the applicant-victim may be given protection and she may be escorted by lady Police Constable to the Court; and (iii) necessary precaution as provided and laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments in case of State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors., reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 and in case of Sakshi vs. Union of India & Ors., reported (2004) 5 SCC 518 may be provided. 4. Learned A.P.P., Mr. Rawal has submitted that in view of the order passed earlier dated 27.07.2011, lady Special Public Prosecution has been appointed for conducting the case of the applicant and in this regard, communication dated 10.08.2011 has already been placed on record. 5. Learned Counsel, Mr. Dagli appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6-accused submitted that though such guidelines may be followed, it may not be construed as having considered any kind of issue or the merits involved in the matter. 6. In view of the above statement made by the learned A.P.P. with regard to the appointment of the lady Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the trial of the applicant, said grievance of the applicant is satisfied. However, other requests made by the learned Counsel, Ms. Shah for the applicant are required to be considered in the facts of the present case. 7. However, other requests made by the learned Counsel, Ms. Shah for the applicant are required to be considered in the facts of the present case. 7. Therefore, the District Judge, Surendranagar is directed to make the concerned Judge, who conducts the trial, to follow the guidelines and shall take all steps that the trial should be conducted in Camera i.e. in the chamber or the Court houses, where others are not allowed except the prosecution and the defence lawyer. Similarly, the victim should be escorted by a lady Police Constable with the protection so that she may not be under any kind of fear or pressure. The concerned Judge shall also take necessary care that the crowd is not allowed to be gathered in the vicinity of the Court premises where the trial is conducted to avoid any kind of harassment and/or pressure. Thus, it is also directed that all the precautions and the guidelines as laid down in the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court shall be followed in order to make the victim comfortable and free from any fear. It is at the same time clarified as requested by learned Counsel, Mr. Dagli as stated above that this order is only for the purpose of following procedure and guidelines for making the victim and other witnesses comfortable and free from fear. The concerned Judge shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law on merits. 8. In view of the above observations, the present application stands disposed of as not pressed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. 9. Direct service is permitted. P P P P P