Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard, Ms. N. Danggen, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Tang, the learned A.P.P., for the State and Mr. A. Apang, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. N. Anju, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. By this petition filed under Section 439 (2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 08.12.2017, passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Siang Dist., Passighat in Bail Application No. 77/2017 in connection with Yingkiong P.S. Case No. 25/2017 under Section 376 IPC read with Section 4/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("POCSO Act" for short).

3. The petitioner herein is the minor victim, represented by her natural grandfather and guardian. The accused is husband of sister of victim's father. Hence, a close relative.

4. The issue raised is very short. It is projected that the victim is a student of Class-VIII and stays in a residential school. On 26.09.2017, during Durga Puja vacations, the accused came to school and took her for a walk and then raped her and threatened her with dire consequences. She ran away to the house of elder sister of her father and informed her everything. Finding her without clothes and covering herself with a towel, some clothes were lent. On the next day by hiring a vehicle, the minor victim was sent to her native village. FIR was lodged at Tuting P.S. on 1.10.17, which was forwarded to Yingkiong P.S., where Yingkiong PS. Case No. 25/2017 under Section 376 IPC read with Section 4/6 of POCSO Act was registered.

5. The accused was granted interim anticipatory bail, which was dismissed on 27.10.2017. After about 3 (three) days, the accused was arrested. Thereafter, the accused was granted bail by order dated 8.12.2017.

6. By referring to the order granting bail, the learned counsel for the victim-petitioner has submitted that as per the bail order, on 21.11.2017, Charge Sheet was filed against the accused. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Eastern Zone, Passighat had directed the DMO Yingkiong to constitute a Board and examine the accused, who was sick, but no report was sent. As PP was absent, considering the submissions made by the learned defence counsel, bail was granted to the accused.

7. It is submitted that absence of report by DMO could not be a ground to enlarge the accused of such heinous crime on bail. Moreover, as bail was granted without hearing the Public Prosecutor (PP for short), the order of bail was in violation of the fourth proviso to Section 439(1) Cr.P.C., 1973 It is submitted that in the present case, granting of bail was a procedural lapse, this was a fit case for cancellation of bail. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel for the victim-petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases:-

(a). Puran v. Rambilas & Anr., (2001) 6 SCC 338;

(b). Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna Jaiswal & Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 678;

(c). Subodh Kr. Yadav v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2009) 14 SCC 638;

(d). Gulabrao Baburao Deokar v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 16 SCC 190.

8. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel has vehemently objected to the instant petition. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 had suffered jail custody for about 38 days and therefore, there was no illegality in granting bail to the respondent No. 2 after charge-sheet was submitted in Court. It is further submitted that for about 6 months now, there is no instance that the respondent No. 2 had misused his liberty or that he has threatened the victim or any witness in the case and that he has not misused his liberty in any manner whatsoever. Hence, no case was made out for grant of bail. It is further submitted that the case was from Upper Siang, but the trial of the respondent No. 2 was taking place at Pasighat, which is at East Siang District and it takes about 2 days to travel to attend trial. Hence, the liberty of b