JUDGMENT 1. Instant appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, 1989 (for short, Act) is filed by accused-appellant seeking annulment of order dated 23rd of March, 2018 and for releasing the accused-appellant on bail, who is facing trial for offence punishable under Sections 376, 384, 511 and 354 IPC and 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(v) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid criminal prosecution of appellant is edificed on FIR No. 46/2017, registered at Police Station Chittorgarh. At present, trial is in vogue before learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Chittorgarh as Sessions Case No. 53/2017. On earlier occasion, the appellant applied for bail before the learned trial Court but the same was turned down and the effort made by appellant before this Court by way of preferring appeal too proved abortive. 3. Arguing on this appeal, it is submitted by learned counsel that after rejection of first bail application and the appeal thereof, there is substantial change in the circumstances. Highlighting substantial change in the circumstances, it is submitted by learned counsel that now during trial, statements of prosecutrix P.W.6 "Ms. A" have been recorded. It is further argued by learned counsel that in her statements, the prosecutrix has clearly and unequivocally admitted that FIR of the incident was lodged after nine years. It is also submitted by learned counsel that there was serious acrimony between the prosecutrix and the accused- appellant due to some financial transactions, and therefore, out of personal vengeance, the case is falsely foisted against him. Learned counsel has also submitted that considering age of the accused-appellant, which is approximately 67 years and prima facie as the prosecution story is not inspiring confidence because of inordinate delay in lodging FIR, it would be just and appropriate to grant some reprive for releasing him on bail. Elaborating his submission, in this regard, learned counsel further contends that learned trial Court has not considered all these aspects inspite of the fact that completion of trial is not offing in near future. 4. Per contra, Mr. K.V. Vyas, learned Public Prosecutor, has strenuously urged that the alleged change is not substantial change in the circumstances. Elaborating his submission, in this regard, learned counsel further contends that learned trial Court has not considered all these aspects inspite of the fact that completion of trial is not offing in near future. 4. Per contra, Mr. K.V. Vyas, learned Public Prosecutor, has strenuously urged that the alleged change is not substantial change in the circumstances. It is also submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that undeniably the age of appellant is 67 years but looking to the gravity of offence, it would not be appropriate to grant any sort of indulgence to him in the instant appeal. 5. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar, examined the impugned order and perused the materials available on record. 6. Upon consideration of the matter, in my view, inordinate delay in lodging of First Information Report cannot loose sight of the Court even at the stage of consideration of bail application and even if it is reported by the victim after a lapse of nine years, more particularly, in the wake of the fact that there was some alleged financial transaction between the parties, has put some cloud on the prosecution story. 7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside, and it is ordered that the accused-appellant, Abbas Khan S/o Chand Khan, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 46/2017, Police Station Chittorgarh may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the 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.