ORAL ORDER

Today, learned APP for the respondent no.1-State has produced a report dated 20.03.2022 under the signature of Incharge Assistant Superintendent of Police, Jambusar Division, Jambusar, which is taken on record.

Present appellant has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 122 of 2022 before the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO) and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge him on regular bail on account of offence being C.R. No. 11199027220046 of 2022 registered with Jambusar Police Station, Dist: Bharuch for the offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code; Section 12 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(I), 5 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short “the Atrocities Act”) , wherein the learned learned Special Judge (POCSO) and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch rejected the said application on 05.02.2022.

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

Heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned APP for the respondent No.1-State.

Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the present appellant is wrongly involved in the offence by the Investigating Agency. That, the appellant is absolutely innocent person and has not committed any offences whatsoever much less offences as enumerated in the FIR. That, there is no corroborative evidence against the appellant as alleged against him. That, entire case is sought to be built up on circumstantial evidence. That, the impugned FIR is loded merely to seek revenge against the appellant. That, considering the age, appellant has not committed the alleged offence. That, there was a trivial altercation between the appellant and the complainant with regard to the payment of fees which resulted into heated arguments between the appellant and complainant and merely because to take revenge and wreak havoc on the appellant, present complaint has been filed by the complainant. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and release the present appellant on regular bail.

Learned APP for the respondent-State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant and submitted that learned trial court has rightly dismissed the prayer for granting bail to the present appellant. That, the offence against the present appellant has been established by the prosecution. That, the appellant is involved in the serious offence thus, no liberty can be granted in favour of the appellant in releasing him on regular bail. Hence, it was requested by learned APP for the respondent No.1 State to dismiss the present appeal.

Report dated 04.03.2022 under the signature of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch speaks about serving notice to the respondent no.2. The notice has been duly served to the respondent no.2, though today when the matter was called, respondent no.2 was not present. Thus, no arguments are advanced for and on behalf of the respondent no.2.

Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant and learned APP for the respondent-State as well as documents produced on record, it appears that the appellant was the driver of the motor vehicle when the incident was taken palce as alleged in the complaint. Considering the seriousness of the offence as per the complaint and appellant is a driver by profession, there is no likelihood to tamper with the evidence evidence of the prosecution or flee away. It appears that the custody of the present appellant would not be required till the conclusion of the trial, as the charge sheet has been filed by the investigating agency before the trial court.

Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court is of the view to exercise t