JUDGMENT : 1. The instant Cr. Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 11.08.2018 passed by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge Jammu (Fast Track Court) in bail application bearing File No.78/Misc. titled Angat Kumar vs. State and ors. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in a false and frivolous case FIR No.183/2013 registered by respondent no. 3 for commission of offence under Sections 376-C/109 RPC and he is in custody since 4th September 2013. It is stated that after the completion of the investigation, the special investigation team filed challan in the Court against the eight accused, and the trial Court has discharged six accused persons and framed charges against two accused persons, namely, Surjeet Kumar and the petitioner-Angat Kumar, both are Chokidars, vide its order dated 24.07.2014 and the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. It is further stated that prosecution has cited 51 prosecution witnesses in the challan which fact is clear from the list of the prosecution witnesses attached with the challan and till date after framing of charge out of 51 cited witnesses, the statement of one witness who happens to be the complainant in the case, namely, Arti Mahajan, was recorded in part on 16.05.2015 and was deferred for want of original complaint which is missing in the challan and at the request of the Special Public Prosecutor, but till date neither the original complaint was placed on record before the trial Court by the prosecution nor the statement of the complainant was concluded. It is further stated that the witness which has been examined so far by the prosecution has not supported the prosecution case. Further that the petitioner as well as accused Surjeet Kumar filed application for grant of bail before the trial Court, but the Court below vide order dated 04.11.2016, has rejected the bail application of the petitioner, however, the trial court accepted the bail application of the co-accused, namely, Surjeet Kumar. It is contended that both the petitioner and the accused Surjeet Kumar were charged under same Section by the trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner filed a bail application bearing B.A. No.43/2017 titled Angat Kumar versus State and others before this Court, which was finally disposed of on 03.07.2018. It is contended that both the petitioner and the accused Surjeet Kumar were charged under same Section by the trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner filed a bail application bearing B.A. No.43/2017 titled Angat Kumar versus State and others before this Court, which was finally disposed of on 03.07.2018. It is stated that petitioner filed bail application in compliance of the above said order before the trial court, but the same was also dismissed by the trial court on 11.08.2018. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 11.08.2018 and challenged the same on the following grounds: (a) That, the trial court has appreciated the evidence as a whole but has picked up only sentence of the statements the statement of PW. Arti is not complete and has been deferred. There is nothing criminating against the petitioner in the statements of the witnesses if reached in totality. (b) That it is further submitted that the applicant and the co-accused Surjeet Kumar was charged under the same Sections by the trial court and the trial court has granted bail to the co-accused and denied bail to the applicant. It is further submitted that the rule of parity demands that the applicant is also entitled to bail as is granted to the co-accused Surjeet Kumar. Therefore the applicant also deserves to be enlarged on bail on the ground of rule of parity. (c) That the applicant is in custody since 4th September, 2013and till date only 13 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution despite the fact that the trial court has fixed numerous calendars and date of hearing as well, but the prosecution on most of the calendars failed to produce the prosecution witness and, therefore, the prosecution is only liable for delay in the trial and still about 40 witnesses are to be examined by the prosecution and from the perusal it is clear that it will take decades to complete the trial and, therefore, the fundamental rights of the applicant to speedy trial is also in fingered and therefore the petitioner is also entitled to bail on the ground of delay in trial. (d) That the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground that denial of bail at this stage will amount to punishment before the conclusion of the trial which is against the well settled principal of law and justice and therefore the applicant is also entitled to the concession of bail. (e) That all the witnesses whose statements have been recorded by the Hon’ble court are almost hostile and furthermore the original complainant has not been produced by the prosecution since three years. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 356 titled Jagan Alias Jagan Nath vs. State of Haryana; and (2017) AIR (SC) 1464, Jalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana. 6. Respondents have filed objections. The stand taken in the objections is that the accused, namely, Angat Kumar is involved in a heinous offence under Section 376-C/109 RPC. The accused has committed the offences against the deaf and dumb girl of Home for Mentally Retarded Children at Channi Himmat, Jammu. It is averred in the objections that if the concession of bail is granted, the accused who is habitual law offender may run away from the prosecution and may attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence as all the witnesses are known to him. 7. The further stand taken by the respondents is that the prosecution has already examined some of the witnesses out of list of witnesses and all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, moreover, at this stage the appreciation of prosecution evidence is not required. It is stated that in view of the strong evidence and their restrictions as per the Provisions as per Section 497-C Cr.P.C, bail may not be granted; that the accused had filed a bail application which was rejected and thereafter, the accused filed another bail application bearing No. 43/2017 before this Court, and the same was disposed with a direction to the petitioner to move a fresh bail application before the Trial court and the Trial Court shall pass fresh orders, taking additional grounds and change of circumstances into the consideration. Thereafter, the petitioner on 07.07.2018 filed a fresh bail application without narrating any change of circumstances. The learned Trial Court below after appreciating the law viz Haji Mohd. Thereafter, the petitioner on 07.07.2018 filed a fresh bail application without narrating any change of circumstances. The learned Trial Court below after appreciating the law viz Haji Mohd. Jaffer& Ors Vs State of J&K reported as 2014 (1) (SLJ) 361, rejected the bail application. 8. It is further stated in the objections that the accused/petitioner has failed to urge and state as to how the order impugned is bad in law except making a bald accusation, therefore, the present Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and law; that the Apex Court of India has underlined the guidelines for criminal court of the country and laid down principles to be taken into consideration at the time of grant of bail. These principles have been embodied in Kalyan Chandra Sankar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Papu Yadav and another (2005) 7 SCC 528 ; all these guidelines have been distilled in a recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jayendra Sarswati Swamigal Vs. Tamil Nadu AIR 2006 (SC) 716; and basically these are the nature and seriousness of the offences, character of evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with the above all, larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factor which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down proposition of law regarding successive bail application that an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail and the court entertaining such subsequent bail application has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected and in such cases the Court has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuade the court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application. 9. I have considered the rival contentions of parties. Accusation against accused petitioner is that the prosecutrix being the minor girls, who were inmates of HOME at the hands of petitioner and others, were made to sexually abused. This matter was referred to District Magistrate, Jammu, who on 11.07.2013 constituted a five members Committee headed by IAS Sushma Chauhan. There after a report was submitted by Committee on 27.8.2013 in two parts. This matter was referred to District Magistrate, Jammu, who on 11.07.2013 constituted a five members Committee headed by IAS Sushma Chauhan. There after a report was submitted by Committee on 27.8.2013 in two parts. One part was containing general conditions of HOME and second part was containing sexual ravishment of five mentally retarded girls. The said report was forwarded to SSP Jammu and FIR under section 376 was registered in Police Station Bahu Fort and SIT was constituted which was headed by Rameshwer Singh, SP, City South, Jammu. During investigation, five girls were examined by Board of Doctors (Gynecologist) on 09.09.2013. Detailed Investigation was conducted. It was found that five mentally retarded victims, two of them deaf and dumb, all with below average intelligence, were subjected to sexual abuse from time to time in the Home by the petitioner, who was CHOWKIDAR and another (former Chowkidar) of said Home. It was also found that one victim was got pregnant and matter was brought to the knowledge of official of Home, but all of them got the pregnancy abort with the help of Doctors at Astha Nursing Home, Ambphala. After completion of investigation, challan was produced and except petitioner and one Surjeet Kumar, all others namely Girdhari Lal Koul, Principal; Rajinder Kapoor, Secretary; P.N. Dubey Member; Ravi Dubey, President of Managing Committee of HOME; Dr. Raman Sharma and Dr. Raj Sharma, proprietor of Astha Nursing Home were discharged. Accused/petitioner has been charge sheeted u/s 376(2)(c) RPC on 24.7.2014; Offence under section 376 (2)(c) RPC is punishable with minimum ten years and may extend to life imprisonment. Allegations are serious in nature. Raman Sharma and Dr. Raj Sharma, proprietor of Astha Nursing Home were discharged. Accused/petitioner has been charge sheeted u/s 376(2)(c) RPC on 24.7.2014; Offence under section 376 (2)(c) RPC is punishable with minimum ten years and may extend to life imprisonment. Allegations are serious in nature. Section 497-C Cr.P.C reads as under:- “497-C. Special provision regarding bail in certain offences against women etc.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code no person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 326A, 370, 376, 376A, 376C, 376D, or 376-E of Ranbir Penal Code, shall if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release; Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. (2) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub-section (1) shall be in addition to the restrictions under the Code or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. (3) Nothing in Section 497A of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person accused of having committed an offence specified in sub-section (1)”. 10. From bare perusal of this section, it is evident that Court shall not grant bail to accused, when it appears that there is prima facie case against accused. In present case, from bare perusal of allegations and other evidence produced so far by prosecution as mentioned in order impugned, it is evident that victims have categorically stated against the accused persons. The ground taken that other co accused has already been enlarged on bail, is not plausible ground to grant the bail to petitioner herein in such heinous offence. The offences against minor girls are increasing day by day; petitioner being custodian of deaf and dumb girls living in Home for mentally retarded children at Channi Himmat, Jammu, have sexually abused them; it is a sin for which even God will not forgive the petitioner. Victims were just like his daughters; even then he has not spared them. The offences against minor girls are increasing day by day; petitioner being custodian of deaf and dumb girls living in Home for mentally retarded children at Channi Himmat, Jammu, have sexually abused them; it is a sin for which even God will not forgive the petitioner. Victims were just like his daughters; even then he has not spared them. The act of accused has shaken the conscious of general public at large. The punishment provided for offence charged is minimum ten years, which may extend to life imprisonment. My conscious does not allow for granting bail to petitioner in such like offences. The law cited by counsel for petitioner is not applicable in present set of case. 11. In view of above, this petition is dismissed as order of court below does not suffer from any illegality.