The main legal point established in the judgment is that while granting bail, the gravity of the crime, character of the evidence, and the presumption of guilt under relevant acts should be considered. Bail orders based on irrelevant considerations can be cancelled, especially in cases involving heinous crimes.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent No.2 vide order dated 18.08.2020 by the Special Court (POCSO Act), Sawai Madhopur. The respondent No.2 was arrested in connection with FIR No.47/2019 registered at Police Station Bamanwas District SawaiMadhopur for the offence(s) under Section(s) 363, 366-A of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Cases and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity "the Act of 1989") and later on for the offences under Sections 363, 366, & 376-D IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 (for brevity "the Act of 2012") and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989.

2. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner submitted that vide order impugned dated 18.08.2020, the accused- respondent No.2 has been extended benefit of bail in a heinous offence ignoring the relevant material available in the case diary especially the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 CrPC as well as 164 CrPC which contained specific allegation against the accused of subjecting her to rape. He submitted that the learned Special Court has assigned three reasons for enlarging the respondent on bail i.e., (i). the accused respondent is not named in the FIR, (ii). the prosecutrix was produced in the police station by her father & (iii). the respondent was confined to custody for 21 days.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the FIR was lodged by father of the prosecutrix as she was found missing, he was unaware of the offence committed by the respondent with her which could be revealed only after her statements were recorded under Sections 161 CrPC as well as 164 CrPC. He submitted that the factum of production of the prosecutrix in the police station by her father, by no stretch of imagination, could have been a relevant consideration for grant of bail to the respondent against whom there was allegation of subjecting the prosecutrix, a minor girl, to rape and similar is true with third reason assigned by the learned Speical Court i.e. incarceration of the accused for a period of 21 days.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the bail application filed by co-accused Krishna Kumar, after filing of the charge-sheet, did not find favour with this Court and was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.06.2021.

5. Drawing attention of this Court towards the material contained in the charge-sheet including the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPc, learned counsel submitted that case of the accused-respondent cannot be said to be on better-footing than that of co-accused Krishna Kumar.

6. Relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr., (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 528, Dinesh M.N. (S.P) v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 66 & Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.1662 of 2012 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.155 of 2012) dated 16.10.2012 and Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in case of Madan Mohan Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Applicaiton No.41/2019 dated 26.08.2019, learned counsel canvassed that if an accused is extended benefit of bail by a Court ignoring the relevant material indicating his involvement in the offence or taking into consideration the irrelevant material, such order deserves to be set aside and benefit of bail is liable to be cancelled. He, therefore, prayed for cancellation of bail extended to the petitioner vide order dated 18.08.2020.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor supporting the prayer made by the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that since the learned Special Court has not taken into consideration the relevant factors for grant of bail, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that once he has b