V. B. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is second petition filed by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Crpc. ( 2 ) THE brief facts are that the petitioner had hired the prosecutrix (Jayanti Kisku) as maid servant in November, 2005 through one Placement Agency and the prosecutrix remained in the house of the petitioner till 19th May, 2007. ( 3 ) ON 1st June, 2007, she gave a complaint to the Police alleging that the petitioner had committed rape on her two times and due to that rape she had become pregnant and was having a child of six months in her abdomen. ( 4 ) THE application of the petitioner for anticipatory bail filed before the Court of Sessions was dismissed vide order dated 11th June, 2007 and thereafter he moved this Court for anticipatory bail and that application was withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 3rd July, 2007 passed by S. Ravindra bhatt, J. However, the petitioner was granted 10 days' protection by this court. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner moved the present bail application. On 12th july, 2007, it was ordered by S. Ravindra Bhatt, J. "that the I. O. should verify whether it is possible to have the DNA test conducted even before the delivery of the child. If such a course of action is permissible, let appropriate steps be taken. In the meanwhile, in the event of petitioner's arrest he shall be released on interim bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of rs. 30,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer". ( 6 ) NOW the DNA report has been filed by the prosecution and according to its conclusion ?the DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude that the Exhibit 3' is not the biological father of the Exhibit 2' (i. e. Baby Girl of Ms. Jayanti Kisku ). ( 7 ) IN view of this DNA report, prima facie, the petitioner is not the father of the child, which the prosecutrix has been carrying in her womb. Jayanti Kisku ). ( 7 ) IN view of this DNA report, prima facie, the petitioner is not the father of the child, which the prosecutrix has been carrying in her womb. ( 8 ) FURTHER, in the FIR, no date or period has been mentioned as to when the prosecutrix was raped by the present petitioner and more over why after being raped twice as alleged the prosecutrix continued working in the house of the petitioner has not been explained at all. ( 9 ) KEEPING in view the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, it is a fit case where anticipatory bail should be granted and as such the interim anticipatory bail granted already is confirmed, subject to same terms and conditions. Accordingly this petition stands disposed of. DASTI.