ORDER : 1. This Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 is filed against an order passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal dated 10.05.2019 rejecting the bail application of the present appellant. 2. The case in brief, as narrated in the FIR filed by respondent no.2 herein, is that the appellant alongwith other two accused entered into the house of the first informant with an intent to commit an offence, who is introduced by first accused – Mahendra @ Mediya to the first informant by name, and therefore, the first informant has named him in the FIR. It is the case of the first informant that all the three accused had knives in their hands and in presence of her children they intended to have sexual relation with the daughter of the first informant, and therefore, first informant sent her upstairs in the house alongwith other children and her sister-in-law. It is further the case of the prosecution that all the three accused followed them upstairs and she also followed all the three. Inside the room, all the three, at knife point, compelled her daughter to have sexual relation but first informant intervened and tried to rescue her, to which all the accused got enraged and started abusing her caste and subsequent thereto, she was brought down by all the three accused and one after another, against her wish and will committed rape over her at knife point. 3. After filing of this Appeal, it was admitted on 20.05.2019 and notice of admission was issued to be served upon respondent no.2 making it returnable on 13.06.2019. However, matter could not reach for hearing on 13.06.2019, and therefore, it was kept on 19.06.2019. On 19.06.2019, Investigating Officer was present in the Court and it was declared that respondent no.2 herein – first informant was not found at the given address, and therefore, notice of admission of this Appeal could not be served to her, and therefore, fresh notice of admission came to be issued to be served through the Investigating Officer making it returnable on 27.06.2019. Again, on 27.06.2019, fresh notice of rule was issued on respondent no.2 making it returnable on 04.07.2019, as respondent no.2 was not found at the given address and as per the statement of her daughter she pleaded ignorance in respect of whereabouts of her mother. In short, though attempts were made to serve notice of admission upon respondent no.2, it failed, and therefore, on 27.06.2019, the Investigating Officer was directed to make attempts to serve her in accordance with law, more particularly Section 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. Today, the Investigating Officer has submitted an affidavit disclosing the attempts made to serve respondent no.2 herein, though unable to serve her personally, it has been attempted to be served to sister-in-law of the first informant as no male members were residing in the family. However, the Investigating Officer has pasted the copy of notice of admission on the conspicuous part of her residence in view of Section 65 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The daughter as also sister-in-law of the first informant appears to be not stating the truth before the Police. They are not stating the truth about the whereabouts of the first informant but also with respect to the availability of two male members in the house. Considering the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer dated 03.04.2019 of one Sameer @ Vijaygiri Goswami, it is clear that he claims to be the husband of first informant and is staying with her since about 8 years. Not only that, there is a statement of one Mukesh Rasikbhai Bambhaniya, who is a distant relative of said Sameer @ Vijaygiri Goswami, who is also staying with the first informant in the very same house. Considering those statements, it is clear that the daughter of the first informant, as also sister-in-law of first informant, namely Yogita as also Dimpleben are not stating true and correct facts before the Investigating Officer. However, since copy of the notice of admission is pasted on the conspicuous part of the residential premises of the first informant, service of notice can be treated to be complete in view of Section 65 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. Heard Shri P B Khandheria, learned advocate for the appellant. He submits that the case put up by the first informant is imaginary. As such, no offence, as alleged is committed. 5. Heard Shri P B Khandheria, learned advocate for the appellant. He submits that the case put up by the first informant is imaginary. As such, no offence, as alleged is committed. He has further submitted that the first accused - Mahendra @ Mediya is the friend of Sameer @ Vijaygiri Goswami, claimed to be the husband of the first informant and all have relations with each other in society. The appellant is said to have gone with Mahendra @ Mediya to the house of respondent no.2 and as claimed in the FIR itself, the quarrel ensued because Sameer @ Vijaygiri Goswami - husband of respondent no.2, stays in company of Mahendra @ Mediya, she had gone to reprimand Mahendra @ Mediya and because of that reason present offence is committed, as claimed by her in the FIR. 5.1 Shri P. B. Khandheria, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that not only the appellant but the first informant is also having criminal antecedents. He has further submitted that she could not be served with the notice of this Court as she is also apprehending arrest pursuant to an offence registered against her in the very same Police Station, being C.R. No. I 47 of 2019, registered subsequent to this offence. 5.2 The assertion is also supported by an affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer explaining the attempts made to serve the notice of this Court. 6.0 Shri Rashesh Rindani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the offence is very serious in nature and since all have criminal antecedents, including the first informant, it is desirable that no discretion be exercised in favour of the appellant. He has further submitted that the case alleged against the appellant is of gang rape and is supported by statement of daughter of first informant Yogitaben and Dimpleben – sister-in-law of the first informant, though they are not the witnesses to the occurence and therefore, he requests to reject the Appeal denying the bail to the appellant. 6.1 Shri Rashesh Rindani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State pointed out that the appellant has three prohibition case to his credit alongwith two proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the year 2015 and 2018, and therefore, he has requested to reject the prayer of bail. 7.0 Following aspects are considered; (i) Investigation is over and chargesheet is filed. 7.0 Following aspects are considered; (i) Investigation is over and chargesheet is filed. (ii) Age of the prosecutrix is 34 years and the age of the present appellant is 25 years. (iii) The present appellant has no connection or relation with the husband of the first informant and the incident has not occurred because of any cause provided by him. (iv) Two inconsistent statements of the very first informant recorded on the very same day, one in the form of FIR as also the statement recorded pursuant to registration of offence, on material aspect. (v) The claim of the first informant with regard to the accused armed with knife entering her house is not supported by eye witness like her daughter. (vi) At the same time, the case pleaded by the Prosecution Witness that they brought liquor with them and started drinking liquor is also not borne out from the FIR. (vii) Considering the conduct of the first informant, prima facie, avoiding service of notice of this Court as also avoiding the arrest in connection with an offence registered against herself. (viii) Self contradictory two statements on the very same day of the first informant creates a doubt about the genuineness of the manner in which the offence is alleged against the accused. Looking to her additional statement recorded, pursuant to the FIR, it is clear that she was dealing in selling of liquor as also she was in the business of prostitution. However, that may not give license to the appellant to commit an offence. (ix) Her husband, Sameer @ Vijaygiri Goswami is also having criminal background and he developed relation with the first accused i.e. Mahendra @ Mediya in Jail. Over and above that Sameer @ Vijaygiri Goswami as also Mukesh Rasikbhai Bambhaniya claims to be staying with the first informant and having relations with her leads to look at those statements at least with some suspicion, if not false. 8.0 However, considering the statement of the first informant herself and the involvement of the appellant in the present case, to an extent is doubtful, as claimed by the first informant with regard to the manner in which the offence is committed, and therefore, the appellant is entitled to bail. Hence, this Appeal is allowed. 8.0 However, considering the statement of the first informant herself and the involvement of the appellant in the present case, to an extent is doubtful, as claimed by the first informant with regard to the manner in which the offence is committed, and therefore, the appellant is entitled to bail. Hence, this Appeal is allowed. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail on his executing the personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court on following terms and conditions; a. not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; b. not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; c. surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; d. not leave India without prior permission of the concerned Trial Court; e. mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a month on every first Sunday between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. for a period of one year; f. the appellant shall not enter the territorial limits of Shapar – Veraval village for a period of one year from today; g. furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; 9.0 The authorities will release the appellant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the learned Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. 10.0 At the trial, the learned trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.