JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - Accused-petitioner, who is facing trial for offence under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 342, 354-B, 355, 357 and 120-B IPC before the Sessions Judge, Banswara, has preferred this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 Foundation of the aforesaid case is FIR No.107/2017, registered at Kalinjara Police Station, District Banswara. 2. First bail application laid on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed on 16th of August, 2017 by a detailed order, followed by rejection of second bail application on 17th of July, 2018. While rejecting the second bail application, liberty was given to the petitioner to renew his prayer after recording Kachru's statement. Pressing this third bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati, that during trial now statements of Kachru and Victim Ms. "M" have been recorded. While referring to the statements of P.W.1 Ms. "M", learned counsel contends that she has not named the petitioner for commission of alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that statements of P.W.2 Kachru are also not inculpatory vis-a-vis petitioner, inasmuch as he, too, did not name of the petitioner for committing such gruesome offences and further as per his version he was not even present at the scene of occurrence. By relying on these substantial change in the circumstances after rejection of earlier two bail applications, leaned counsel contends that petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Further co-accused persons namely Govind, Sharma, Guatam, Naku, Heera and Mani Lal have already been enlarged on bail and case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from them, thus, he may be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned Addl. Advocate General has very vehemently opposed the third bail application. 4. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar, as well as statements of both the witnesses and taken into consideration the change in circumstances sought to be canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and serious discrepancies in the statements of both the witnesses about prima facie involvement of the petitioner in commission of charged offence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I feel persuaded to accept this third bail application. 6. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and serious discrepancies in the statements of both the witnesses about prima facie involvement of the petitioner in commission of charged offence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I feel persuaded to accept this third bail application. 6. Consequently, this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner, Dilip Khant S/o Shri Chetan Khant, arrested in connection with FIR No.107/2017, registered at Police Station Kalinjara, District Banswara, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.