JUDGMENT Pranay Verma, J. - This is second application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The applicant is implicated in connection with Crime No.99/2022 registered at Police Station Gogawa, District Khagone (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 376, 506. 34 of the IPC. 2. The applicant is in custody since 16.02.2022. 3 . First application bearing M.Cr.C. No.27563/2022 was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 04.07.2022. 4 . As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix was a resident of Gram Nandgaon Bagudh. Her uncle had met with an accident hence she had gone to see him. In Gogawa she had asked one boy the way to Bilkhed, who had asked her come with him. There was one friend of his also alongwith him. The boy took the prosecutrix near a river and threatened her and committed rape upon her. He also threatened her with life thereafter and told her not to narrate the incident to anyone and both of them thereafter left. On lodging of the report by the prosecutrix, the applicant has been implicated and arrested for the present offence. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecutrix has been examined before the trial Court and she has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. She has stated that she does not know the applicant and that she had gone alongwith the applicant on his motorcycle who had dropped her at Bilkhed and that no other incident besides the aforesaid ever took place. She had also stated that she has not made any report to the police as alleged. It is further submitted that co-accused Shiv alias Shiva has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.12.2022, passed in MCRC No. 48836/2022. The applicant is in custody since 16-02-2022 and the trial is likely to take time for its conclusion. On such grounds prayer for release of applicant on bail has been made. 6. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State submitting that in view of the allegations levelled against the applicant he is not entitled to be released on bail merely on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix. 7. On such grounds prayer for release of applicant on bail has been made. 6. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State submitting that in view of the allegations levelled against the applicant he is not entitled to be released on bail merely on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary and the statement of the prosecutrix. 8. The prosecutrix has been examined before the trial Court and she has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. She has stated that she does not know the applicant and two persons had dropped her at Bilkhed and no other incident as aforesaid ever took place. She has stated not to have made any report to the police. Co-accused Shiv alias Shiva has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.12.2022, passed in MCRC No. 48836/2022 The applicant is in custody since 16-02-2022 and the trial is still likely to take time for its conclusion. Thus in my opinion, under the changed circumstances, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9 . Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 10. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective. Certified copy as per rules.