JUDGMENT Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.:- Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Aneesh, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376 (g) read with Section 34, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.141, dated 29.05.2011, registered at Police Station, Hathin, District Palwal. 2. Learned Senior counsel contends that even if the whole material available on record is taken at its face value, then also, no case for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 368 read with Section 34 and 376(2)(g), IPC, is made out against the petitioner. He also contends that during investigation of the present case, the prosecutrix had alleged that one Jafru had purchased her and he continued to commit rape on her. The said Jafru was arrested and put to trial. In that case, the prosecutrix appeared as prosecution witness No.2 and did not support the prosecution version. Learned Senior counsel further contends that even the prosecutrix denied of having suffered the statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C., which has been relied upon by the Investigating Agency to prosecute petitioner-Aneesh and his co-accused in this case. He also contends that even the prosecutrix had disowned the statement recorded by the police, in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C., in this case. It has also been contended that after taking the material available on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had acquitted Jafru vide judgment dated 17.07.2012. He further contends that the petitioner is behind bars from 17.01.20113. The charges were framed long back and in spite of affording several opportunities to the prosecution, it failed to produce the prosecutrix in the witness box. He further contends that now one co-accused of the petitioner has also been put to trial by the Investigating Agency by filing the additional charge-sheet, therefore, de novo trial has to be take place. 3. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He very fairly concedes that Jafru, the co-accused of the petitioner, was put to trial and was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal. 4. Heard. 5. 3. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He very fairly concedes that Jafru, the co-accused of the petitioner, was put to trial and was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal. 4. Heard. 5. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case and the fact that prosecutrix had remained with Jafru for approximately 09 months but the matter was not reported to the police in that regard, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner- Aneesh, s/o Deenu, r/o Village Chilli, P.S.Hathin, District Palwal, is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of trial, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. 6. The observations made herein above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, during the course of trial. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ——————————