ORDER

1. While hearing the bail plea of the petitioner Suresh, it is noticed that the prosecutrix in her statement has stated that the accused was not known to her. During the course of investigation, a photograph was shown by the police just to ascertain his identity. She has been examined in the trial on 10.08.2021 as PW-1 wherein it is deposed by her that a boy named Suresh took her away and raped her. As per her, who the accused Suresh, she didn't know.

2. It is transpiring that when she was examined in the trial, the accused was not produced from the jail no endeavours were made to a certain/verify the fact that whether the accused present in the court was the same against whom she made allegations of rape. The authority/obligation provided under section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act has not been used/exercised by the presiding officer.

3. It is a case of committing an offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon a girl below 16 years where the culprit was not known to the victim, how it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused facing trial is the same person who committed the offence.

4. This Court vide order dated 14.12.2021, sought an explanation from th