JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant 4th application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the accused petitioner Raju Ram Kadwasra @ Raju, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.83/2016, Police Station Boranada, Distt. Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 452/34, 376 and 419 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. 2. While rejecting the 3rd application for bail submitted on behalf of the petitioner, this Court gave him liberty to file a fresh bail application after the witness Bal Mukund is examined at the trial. The statement of Bal Mukund has now been recorded as PW4 whereafter, the instant 4th application for bail has been moved. 3. Brief facts considered relevant and essential for disposal of the instant 4th bail application are reproduced herein below:- 4. Shri Bal Mukund lodged a written report at Police Station Boranada on 27.04.2016 alleging inter alia that on the previous evening at about 9 o'clock, a person named Raju Ram Kadwasra @ Raju (petitioner herein) came to his house in a police vehicle for making an inquiry about the informant's sister and her niece. Both of them were taken to the Police Station and were dropped back to the complainant's house. Thereafter, Raju Ram and his friend came back to his house and portraying themselves to be police officers, they indulged in an exercise of interrogating the girls of the family. Initially, Seema was called into the room. Thereafter, Mst.N was called in the room and the accused tried to subject her to rape, however, he could not succeed. Thereafter, Mst.N was sent out and Mst.S was called into the room. She was threatened that she would be sent to the lockup and under this fear, was subjected to rape by the accused-petitioner. Mst.N came out crying and told the informant about the incident which took place in the room whereafter, the first informant approached the Police Station and lodged the report. On the basis of this written report, an FIR No.83/2016 for the offences under Sections 452/34, 376 and 419 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act was registered at the Police Station Boranada and investigation was commenced. 5. The accused-petitioner was arrested and a charge sheet was filed against him and one Bhunda Ram for the above offences. On the basis of this written report, an FIR No.83/2016 for the offences under Sections 452/34, 376 and 419 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act was registered at the Police Station Boranada and investigation was commenced. 5. The accused-petitioner was arrested and a charge sheet was filed against him and one Bhunda Ram for the above offences. During investigation, the FSL examination was carried out of the swab and smear (collected from the victim's person) and other samples collected in relation to the alleged incident of rape. It may be stated that the swabs etc. collected from the victim's body did not test positive for the presence of human semen. Mst.N, upon being examined at the trial did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Seema was not even cited as a prosecution witness in the calender of witnesses. The statement of the victim Mst.S was recorded by the trial court as PW-3. Thereafter, the Court while considering the 3rd application for bail filed on behalf of the accused petitioner, directed that the first informant be examined and then, the prayer for bail made on behalf of the accused-petitioner will be considered afresh. 6. Shri Bohra, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently and fervently urged that the first informant Bal Mukund in his statement gave a totally contradictory version of the incident as compared to what was alleged by him in the FIR. He referred to the candid admission appearing in the statement of Bal Mukund that he and his family members were sitting on the roof of the neighbour's house when the accused was allegedly calling the girls for interrogation and that they could see what was happening in the room. As per Shri Bohra, this fact clearly demolishes the entire prosecution story as being a bundle of lies because had there been a semblance of truth in these allegations, then there was no reason as to why the family members would not try to intervene and save the victim from the clutches of the accused. He thus submits that the entire case of prosecution is false and fabricated and hence, the accused-petitioner who is in custody for the last nearly three years, deserves indulgence of bail. 7. He thus submits that the entire case of prosecution is false and fabricated and hence, the accused-petitioner who is in custody for the last nearly three years, deserves indulgence of bail. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel representing the complainant have vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and urged that the victim Mst.S has given a categoric description of sexual assault made upon her by the accused petitioner. Since the victim is a young tender age girl of about 17 years, the accused does not deserve indulgence of bail because he is charged of the reprehensive act of sexually assaulting the minor girl. On these grounds, they craved dismissal of the bail application. However, they too were not in a position to dispute the fact that Seema was not cited as a witness on behalf of the prosecution in the trial. The other girl Mst.N did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 9. On a perusal of the statement of Bal Mukund, the first informant, it is clear that he admitted that while the victim was in the room with the accused petitioner, they could see what was happening while sitting on the roof of the neighbor's house. Despite that, Bal Mukund and his family members apparently made no efforts whatsoever to restrain the accused petitioner from sexually assaulting the girl. This admission as appearing in the statement of Bal Mukund definitely creates a doubt on the truthfulness of the entire prosecution story. Out of the three girls who were allegedly called into the room for interrogation, Mst. Seema was not even cited as a witness. Mst. N did not support the prosecution case. The FSL report rules out presence of semen in the Swab and Smear collected from the victim's person. 10. However, these comments are being made by this Court just for the purpose of deciding the instant bail application and it is made clear that the same would have no bearing on the fate of the trial. 11. The FSL report rules out presence of semen in the Swab and Smear collected from the victim's person. 10. However, these comments are being made by this Court just for the purpose of deciding the instant bail application and it is made clear that the same would have no bearing on the fate of the trial. 11. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as emanating from the record; considering the prolonged custodial period suffered by the accused petitioner and the faint possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future, this Court is inclined to extend the indulgence of bail to the accused petitioner. Consequently, the 4th application for bail is allowed. It is ordered that the accused petitioner Raju Ram Kadwasra @ Raju S/o Birma Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.83/2016, Police Station Boranada, Distt. Jodhpur shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.80,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.40,000/- 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.