A P Thaker, J.

Admit. Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of admission for respondent No.1 - State.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Atrocity Act" for short) at the instance of the appellants - original accused for bail in connection with the FIR being I - C.R.No.03/2019 registered with Aamletha Police Station, District: Narmada for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(5) of the Atrocity Act and Sections 3, 4, 12, 16 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter be referred to as "the POCSO Act").

3. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the present appellants are named in the FIR for the allegation that they have abetted in the offence committed by the main accused by keeping them at their residence. It is further contended that they have been arrested on 28.02.2019 and this is an appeal for regular bail before filing of the charge-sheet. It is contended that they have preferred bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No.66 of 2019 before the District and Sessions Court, Rajpipla which came to be rejected vide order dated 08.03.2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajpipla. It is also contended that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. It is further contended that appellant No.1 is aged about 25 years and appellant No.2 is aged about 45 years and the appellant No.1 is brother and appellant No.2 is mother of the main accused. It is also contended that the story put forward by respondent No.2 is not believable insofar as the only role which is alleged is regarding the abetment and except that there is no other offence is said to have been committed by the present appellants. It is contended that the appellants are ready and willing to abide by all conditions which may be imposed by this Court. They have prayed to release them on bail.

4. Heard Mr.Apurva Kapadia, learned advocate for the appellants and Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State. Though served, nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. Mr.Apurva Kapadia, learned advocate for the appellants has vehemently submitted that the present appellant No.1 is the brother and appellant No.2 is the mother of the main accused and the role attributed to the present appellants are to give shelter to the main accused and the victim. It is submitted that being brother and mother, the appellants have given only shelter to their brother and son which cannot be said that they have done any wrongful act. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed, but it has not been narrated in the present appeal and by mistake it has been narrated that the charge-sheet is not filed. It is also submitted that the filing of the charge-sheet will be in favour of the appellants and the Court should not take hyper and technical view. It is further submitted that the High Court and the Sessions Court has concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, even during the pendency of the application / appeal, if the charge-sheet is filed, it will not make any difference. He has submitted that the charge-sheet is being filed, bail will be ruled and jail will be exceptional. He has further submitted that keeping the appellants in jail will not meet with the end of justice. He has submitted that there is no any criminal antecedent of the present appellants.

5.1 Mr.Kapadia, learned advocate for the appellants has relied upon the decision in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 for his preposition that in the matters of personal liberty, the High Court should not be too technical and must learn in favour of perso