ORAL ORDER

1. Present Criminal Misc. Application is filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing impugned order dated 25.9.2017 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1111 of 2017 by learned District and Sessions Judge, Mehsana for the offences alleged. 2. Background of facts of the instant case is that victim girl Maulika had gone to natural call on 18.6.2017 at about 1.30 p.m. and from there, she did not come back. Complainant started search for her and coming to know that respondent No.2, i.e. Anilbhai Naranbhai Desai, had induced and abducted the victim for the purpose of marriage and later on, on 8.7.2017, victim was found from Patan and upon inquiry, informed that on 18.6.2017, when she had gone, at that point of time, around 2.00 p.m., accused No.2 i.e. respondent accused and other persons came and forcefully took her in white car and administered threat that if she would raise any voice, she would be done away and due to some smelling material mixed in one handkerchief, she was made unconsciousness and when she regained consciousness, realized that she was in Seven Days Hotel at Mundra. Respondent accused subjected to her not only sexual intercourse against her will but also got signatures on certain papers and thereafter, she was shifted to Naroda, Ahmedabad and was confined in one house. There also, respondent No.2 took liberty with her but some how, on 8.7.2017, she succeeded and escaped from the custody of respondent No.2 and reached at Patan. So much so, ornaments of victim and her mobile phone were also taken away by respondent No.2 and thereby has committed serious offence, which has resulted into filing of a complaint before Becharaji Police being I- C.R. No.47 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 366, 328, 395, 397, 344, 406, 420, 506(2) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Respondent No.2 on account of this incident had filed one Habeas Corpus Petition and simultaneously being apprehending of his arrest, had filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by contending that he is an innocent person and whatever alleged in the complaint is untrue.

4. Said application had come up for consideration before learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, who by order dated 25.9.2017 was pleased to allow the application for anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions which are visible from the order in question.

5. It is this order of grant of anticipatory bail passed in the month of September 2017, which is made the subject matter of present Criminal Misc. Application for seeking cancellation thereof.

6. It appears that Rule was issued way back in the month of December 2017 and thereafter, it has come up for consideration before this Court, in which learned advocate Mr. Anil C. Thakore appearing for applicant, original complainant, has contended that serious offence of Section 376 is committed by respondent No.2 and as such, learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the seriousness of the offence while extending protection of anticipatory bail. It has been further contended that reasons which are assigned by learned Sessions Judge are not germane to law nor the issue of custodial interrogation has been dealt with whether it is required or not and straightway, granted anticipatory bail. Mr. Thakore has further submitted that while passing impugned order, proper reasons have also not been assigned and without much discussion, straightway, protection has been extended, which circumstance is sufÏcient enough to cancel anticipatory bail, which has been granted. Mr. Thakore has then candidly submitted that this order which is sought to be cancelled is of September 2017 and in between trial has commenced and as such, has left to the discretion of the Court without much resistance thereafter.

7. As against this, learned advocate Mr. B.S. Khatana appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has contended that application may not be entertained at t