JUDGMENT:

B.N. Karia, J.

1. The appellant preferred one Criminal Misc. Application No. 399 of 2021 before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO) & 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch u/s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge the appellant on regular bail on account of offence being registered vide I-C.R. No. 39 of 2013 with Amod Police Station, Bharuch for the offence punishable u/s. 363, 366, 376, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3(1) (12) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act") as well as u/s. 4, 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act wherein, the learned Special Judge (POCSO) & 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch rejected the said application on 11.06.2021.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred present appeal u/s. 14A of the Atrocities Act.

3. However notice was served to the respondent No. 2, she was not remained present either in person or through an advocate to contest this criminal appeal.

4. Heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned APP for the respondent-State.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that appellant had been falsely implicated in the said offences. That FIR came to be filed after delay of four days and no satisfactory explanation was given by the complainant in the FIR. That on plain reading of the report of the Medical officer, it reveals that there is no injury on the body or internal parts of the prosecutrix, and therefore, it cannot be said that the force or pressure was used upon the prosecutrix. That investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO) & 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch and release the appellant on bail.

6. Learned APP for the respondent-State has strongly objected the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the appellant and submitted that appellant was involved in serious offence, therefore, no lenient view can be taken by this Court. Hence, it was requested by learned APP for the respondent-State to dismiss the present appeal.

7. As the respondent No. 2 was remained absent, no arguments was advanced.

8. Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant as well as learned APP for the respondent-State and police papers produced on record, it appears that present appellant was arrested on 27.01.2021 in connection with the FIR being I-C.R. No. 39 of 2013 with Amod Police Station, Bharuch for the offence punishable u/s. 363, 366, 376, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3(1) (12) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act") as well as u/s. 4, 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act. As per the case of the prosecution, on 14.07.2013, one Sumitraben Chandubhai Vasava, respondent No. 2 herein had lodged the FIR/complaint alleging that on 04.07.2013, the accused No. 1 and 2 had abducted the complainant from the legal guardianship of her parents and took her on motorcycle to Amod village and thereafter, the accused No. 1 took the complainant to Chotila, Virpur and Mangrol villages in truck and committed sexual intercourse without her consent at different villages and beaten her knowing that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and the accused No. 2 and 3 had helped the accused No. 1 in abducting the complainant and thus, the accused persons have committed the offence. As per the submissions made by learned advocate appearing for the appellant that the appellant was aged 18 years old at the time of incident and appellant himself and the prosecutrix both were in love affair since last three years but the prosecutrix was aged 17 years old and the appellant asked her to wait till both attains age of majority and thereafter, they