Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant bail application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-petitioner seeks bail for the offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned dated 02.03.2005 passed by Special Judge S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bikaner whereby the Special Judge has dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC. I have carefully gone through the challan papers, statement of the prosecutrix, medical evidence as also the statements of other witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 CrPC. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner the the prosecutrixs age is between 17-19 years and the age of petitioner is also of 19 years and, therefore, without there being any consent of the prosecutrix, sexual intercourse would not have been possible. On these premises, learned Counsel contends that the prosecutrix is the consenting party to the sexual intercourse. Learned Counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in Gopal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan , 1980 CrLR 349 (Raj.), wherein while allowing the appeal filed by the accused therein against his conviction under Section 376 IPC, it was held that the fact that there were injuries to the anterior posterior wall of vagina does not necessarily mean that sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, a girl between 16-17 years was without her consent. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the prosecutrix, a minor girl of 15 years and a member of scheduled caste has been subjected to rape by the petitioner and prima facie from the evidence collected by the police during the investigation, it has been established that it was the petitioner, who committed rape on the prosecutrix without her consent. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the prosecutrix, in her statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner clearly stated that while she was returning home from the field after collecting fodder for the cows in a bag on her head, suddenly petitioner came from her backside and threw her bag, upon which, she started weeping and told him that she would report the matter to her father and thereafter, she started walking. The accused suddenly caught her leg and fell her down. She suffered injuries on the face and thereafter, she was dragged and the petitioner committed sexual intercourse on her against her wish. She raised cries, upon which, 2-3 persons came there and by their intervention, the petitioner left her and ran away. Thereafter, she went to her house and informed the occurrence to her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and one Chunni Lal. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police. There is no delay in reporting the matter to police. 5. In view of the statement of the prosecutrix and looking to her age, at this stage, it cannot be said that she was the consenting party to the sexual intercourse. There are statements of Panna Ram, Sita Devi, Daula Ram, Shera Devi, Shiv Lal and Chunnilal, to whom the prosecutrix narrated the occurrence soon after it took place. In view of the evidence collected by the police during the investigation and looking to the gravity of heinous offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, I do not consider it a fit case to release the petitioner on bail. 6. Consequently, no case for bail is made out. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC is, therefore, rejected.