JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - This petition, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), has been preferred for enlarging the petitioner on regular bail, in case FIR No.75 of 1989, registered under Section 376(2)(G) of the Indian Penal Code, in Police Station, Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Status report stands filed, wherein it is stated that on 9.7.1989, victim got her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., stating therein that on 8.7.1989, she, with permission of her mother, had gone to Manali market to purchase shoes, where she went to Star Video Parlour to watch a movie, where one Vijay, resident of Manali, was sitting on adjacent chair, who offered her to accompany him to Vashisht, which was refused by her, whereupon he started saying so many things and compelled her to come with him from Manali market to the road at Vashisht curve and thereafter he arranged a Taxi/Jeep and made her to sit in the Jeep by catching hold of her arm. Taxi was being driven by present petitioner and Ravi Prakash was sitting with him, and all of them took her to Solang Nala. Jeep was parked on the road and Vijay had taken her backside of big stones and violated her. Thereafter, when she was about to move, three other persons Sunil, Bittu and Neenu had come in another Taxi, who also committed sexual intercourse with her and because of fear she could not say anything and thereafter Tikkam Ram and one another person, namely Nanak Mahant, had also come there and she, considering them local persons, accompanied them and Vijay, Sunil and Bittu had gone in their Taxi towards Manali and Tikkam Ram, Raghu Mahant and petitioner Joginder Singh alias Munna, Ravi, Beenu, etc. took her towards Manali in Jeep and after parking the Jeep, she was taken in the dark area, away from the road and all of them had committed sexual intercourse with her and Tikkam Ram remained with her in the last but he had also left the spot, leaving her alone, and thereafter with great difficulty she reached home and disclosed the entire incident to her mother, whereafter, on the next day, she had come to the Police Station alongwith her parents to lodge FIR. 3. 3. As per status report, on completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court against Vijay Kumar, Bittu, Ravi Prakash, Chuni Lal and Raghubir Mahant, whereas Joginder Singh alias Munna (petitioner) and Neenu were declared proclaimed offenders. Ultimately, in Criminal Appeal No.264 of 2009, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh, this High Court, vide Judgment dated 2.3.2017, had convicted all five accused, with further direction to the police to file a challan against Joginder Singh alias Munna and Neenu, after searching them. Thereafter on 28.6.2017, at about 10 a.m., petitioner was arrested at Manali and was got identified from victim as a person who had committed rape with her on 8.7.1989. During investigation, petitioner had identified the spot of commission of offence. 4. Lastly, it is stated that the petitioner had committed the offence in the year 1989, whereafter he was absconding and now three witnesses have been examined and ten witnesses remain to be examined and next date of hearing in the trial Court is 28.8.2020 for further orders. 5. Learned Deputy Advocate General, under instructions, has also submitted that all remaining ten witnesses are official witnesses. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that statements of victim and her mother have been recorded as PW-1 and PW-2, and in her statement as PW-1, victim, in examination-in-chief, has stated that she could not say whether the accused person in the Court was same Munna alias Joginder Singh and in cross-examination also she has stated that it was correct that she was not sure that the accused person in the Cour/t was same Joginder. It is also submitted by learned coun sel for the petitioner that petitioner had not absconded but was driving a Taxi regularly between Kalka-Kullu-Manali and during the intervening period he has been married at Kalka and is now father of two young daughters, and his 21 years old elder daughter, at the time of his arrest in the year 2017, was studying in the 1st Year, but after his arrest she had dropped her studies and 19 years younger daughter is pursuing her studies in 3rd year of Computer Course, and that his family was residing at Kalka, which has now, during July-August, 2020, shifted to Parwanoo. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that being a responsible person, having a family stationed in Himachal Pradesh, there is no possibility of the petitioner's absconding, therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, he is entitled for bail. 7. Controverting the plea of petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General has pointed out that victim, in her examination-in-chief, after saying that she could not say whether the accused person in the Court was same Munna alias Joginder, had again stated that accused was the same person and in cross-examination also her admission has been further qualified by her in her statement, which has been recorded by the trial Court, as she has stated that with the passage of time she was unable to recollect and recognize the accused person in the Court. He has further submitted that there is no denial on the part of the victim that petitioner was not the same person and this issue is yet to be determined by the trial Court on its merit, after recording entire evidence as there may be other material to corroborate the fact that petitioner is the same accused who had committed offence in the year 1989. 8. Petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in the year 1990 and he has been arrested on 28.6.2017. Whereabouts of the petitioner, during the intervening period, are not known, but the fact remains that for about 27 years he was out of reach of police. It is claimed by the petitioner that during this period he was running a Taxi between Kalka- Kullu -Manali. Then again, this is a matter of serious concern that despite being in the same area, the petitioner was able to avoid his arrest and manage the affairs in such a manner that for 27 years he could not be prosecuted and for that reason the witnesses, who were examined during the trial long ago, are not able to depose, with certainty. There is possibility that petitioner had been absconding only to have benefit of delay in trial, as after long period, for capacity and capability to retain, remember, recollect and narrate the facts and instances, there is always variation or confusion in the statements of witnesses. 9. Petitioner had also approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, by filing an application for bail, which was dismissed on 13.1.2020. 10. 9. Petitioner had also approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, by filing an application for bail, which was dismissed on 13.1.2020. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that apprehension of the trial Court that petitioner, may again cause delay in conclusion of trial against him, in case he is enlarged on bail, is not baseless. 11. So far as merit or defect in the statement of victim is concerned, the same is to be assessed by the Trial Court by considering entire evidence produced and to be produced before it. 12. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that it would be in the interest of justice that trial, pertaining to an incident of 1989, undergoing in the trial Court in 2020, on account of absconding of the petitioner, is concluded at the earliest and for that purpose, to secure the presence of petitioner, it would not be appropriate to enlarge him on bail. 13. Therefore, in view of above, present petition is dismissed, with direction to the parties to ensure their effective representation before the trial Court on 28.8.2020, the date already fixed by the Court and dates subsequent thereto to be fixed by the trial Court, enabling the trial Court to record the evidence at the earliest and in view of Notification dated 7.8.2020 issued by the High Court, the trial Court is also directed, by taking all safety measures, to fix date(s) for recording the evidence and to complete the evidence in trial as early as possible, so as to conclude the trial expeditiously. Prosecution is also directed to ensure presence of the witnesses on the dates fixed by the trial Court, as remaining all witnesses are official witnesses. Parties are also directed to avoid unnecessary adjournments but to cooperate and assist the Court to record the evidence and conclude the trial at the earliest, preferably by 30th October, 2020. 14. Any fact recorded herein-above and observations made by this Court are limited to the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same, in any eventuality, shall not be construed to have been made/observed on merits and thus, shall not have any effect on merits of case, which is to be decided by trial Court on its own merits on the basis of material before it. 15. Petition stands disposed of. 15. Petition stands disposed of. Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the trial Court, through E-mail. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to ensure compliance.