JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant-Fatan Khan against the order dated 26th October, 2016 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Barmer whereby, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 2. The brief facts as per the prosecution story are that on 5th June, 2016, prosecutrix 'K' along with her cousin sister 'S' sent a message to Sheru Khan to bring the vehicle for going to Sheo. Accused-appellant-Fatan Khan also came along with Sheru Khan. Both 'K' and 'S' went to Sheo by that vehicle along with Fatan Khan and Sheru Khan. On the request made by the prosecutrix 'K' and 'S', they did not allow them to get down and forcibly took them to one hotel in Jaisalmer. In the separate rooms of that hotel, they committed rape with prosecutrix 'K' and 'S'. Thus, the charge-sheet came to be registered against them under Section 376 (1) IPC and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act along with other offences. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both cousin sisters 'K' and 'S' were in love with hotel owners namely, Ratan Lal and Ratan Singh where they were working as bar girls. It is argued that the prosecutrix 'K' is admittedly of 19 years of age which is apparent from the school certificate wherein her date of birth is mentioned as “15th April, 1997”. It is also argued that there is no injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix 'K'. She did not make any hue and cry for the help when the alleged offence is said to have been committed on her. His contention is that under such circumstances, it is clear that the relationship was consensual. Taking this plea, he has prayed that the accused-appellant be released on bail while setting aside the order impugned dated 26th October, 2016. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer. 5. I have gone through the relevant papers annexed with the appeal. True it is that date of birth of prosecutrix 'K' is 15th April, 1997 according to which she appears to be major in age. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer. 5. I have gone through the relevant papers annexed with the appeal. True it is that date of birth of prosecutrix 'K' is 15th April, 1997 according to which she appears to be major in age. For the arguments sake, even if it is assumed that the prosecutrix 'K' was in platonic love with the hotel owner Ratan Lal and in search of whom, prosecutrix 'K' went to Jaisalmer searching him, it does not absolve the appellant Fatan Khan in any way from the charge of rape alleged against him. So far as the role of the present appellant-accused-Fatan Khan is concerned, prosecutrix 'K' was not in relationship with him. When prosecutrix 'K' along with 'S' reached the destination and asked Fatan Khan to let them get down from the vehicle, he did not allow her to do so. As per the statements given under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by prosecutrix 'K', accused-appellant-Fatan Khan committed rape on her. Taking these facts into consideration, it cannot be said that there was consensual sexual relation between the accused-appellant-Fatan Khan and prosecutrix 'K'. 6. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the accused-appellant-Fatan Khan does not deserve to be allowed and the same is accordingly rejected. 7. However, the accused-appellant is given liberty to move subsequent appeal after the statements of the prosecutrix is recorded during trial.