JUDGMENT : Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner prosecutrix preferred this application for cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. assailing the impugned order dated 30.03.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District in criminal misc. second bail application No. 141/2016 (Rinku Choudhary @ Bali v. State of Rajasthan) whereby learned Sessions Judge allowed the bail application of respondent No. 2 accused in the matter of FIR No. 539/2015 at Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner lodged FIR No. 539/2015 at Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur stating therein that :- Þfuosnu gS fd eSa esjs ekrk&firk ds lkFk IykV ua- 25 eksrh uxj xqtZj dh FkM+h t;iqj uhokl djrh gwa eSa ekbZ vku Ldwy esa d{kk uoeh esa i<+rh gwaA eSa fjf/k fl/kh esa vkdk’k esa i<+rh gwaA eSa ges’kk vkdk’k lujFkk esa eSftd ls tkrh gwaA vkt vkdk’k dksphax lsUVj ls eSftd xkM+h ugha vkbZ FkhA dksphax ds le; pkj cts vkaVks fjD’kk okyk vk;k ftlus dgk fd vkt eSftd xkM+h ugha vk;sxh vkVks fjD’kk ls gh tkuk gS eSa vkVks fjD’kk okys dh ckrksa ij fo’okl dj vkVks fjD’kk esa cSB xbZ vkVks fjD’kk okyk eq>s fjf/k flf/k ij fjykbUl QzS’k ij ys x;kA og eq>s vkVks fjD’kk ls mrkj fn;k mlh txg gekjs edku ekfyd dk yM+dk fjadq pkS/kjh eq>s flVh pkaniksy esa deQVZ gksVy ys x;k deQVZ gksVy ds dejk ua- 202 es ts tjdh eq>s Mjk /kedk dj esjs ls tcjnLrh esjh bPNk ds fo:) nq”deZ cykRdkj fd;k eSa dkQh fpYykbZ ijUrq og ugha ekuk fjadq pkS/kjh blls igys Hkh eq>s 15 vxLr] 22 flrEcj vkSj 7 vDVwcj dks mlh gksVy esa ys x;kA og esjs lkFk nq”deZ cykRdkj fd;k Fkka ;g ckr esjs ?kjokyks dks crkus ij eq>s og ?kjokyksa dks tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nh FkhA bl dkj.k eSaus vius ?kjokyksa dks Mjrs gq, ugha crkbZ FkhA vc eSa esjs ekrk firk ds lkFk fjadw pkS/kjh ds fo:) fjiksVZ ntZ djokus vkbZ gwaAÞ 2. On the said report FIR No. 539/2015 under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 363, 366A and 376 IPC was registered and investigation commenced and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet against respondent No. 2 accused wherein trial commenced. Matter is still at the state of prosecution evidence. 3. On the said report FIR No. 539/2015 under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 363, 366A and 376 IPC was registered and investigation commenced and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet against respondent No. 2 accused wherein trial commenced. Matter is still at the state of prosecution evidence. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner complainant Shri S S Mahla submits that the allegation against the respondent No. 2 accused are very serious. The Date of Birth of prosecutrix is 5/12/2000 and the date of incident is 15th August, 22nd September and 7th October, 2015. Therefore, the age of prosecutrix at the time of incident was less than 15 years and prosecutrix in her statement categorically levelled allegation against the respondent No. 2 accused that he committed rape with her repeatedly. He submits that on the same grounds learned Sessions Judge earlier rejected the application of bail of respondent No. 2. Thereafter, without any changed circumstances, the second bail application was allowed vide impugned order dated 30.03.2016. He submits that while allowing the bail application learned Sessions Judge overlooked the provisions of Section 29 of POCSO Act and the fact of minority of prosecutrix and merely on the ground of consent allowed the bail application. While the consent of minor is immaterial, therefore, impugned bail order may be canceled. 4. Learned counsel relied on State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad @ Rajballav PD Yadav @ Rajballabh Yadav reported in 2017 (1) CJ (Cri.) (SC) 186 and order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 11.04.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Cancellation of Bail Application No. 49/2015 (Jaipal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.). 5. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No. 2 accused Shri Manish Sharma supported the impugned order and submitted that since statement of prosecutrix has already been recorded and considering statement of prosecutrix and period of detention, learned Sessions Judge allowed the bail application and there is no allegation that respondent No. 2 accused misused his liberty. Therefore, there is no ground for cancellation of bail. 6. Learned PP. Shri Jitendra Shrimali supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made at Bar. In the matter of State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad, Hon’ble Supreme Court in similar type of case even after examination of prosecutrix during trial canceled the bail order. 6. Learned PP. Shri Jitendra Shrimali supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made at Bar. In the matter of State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad, Hon’ble Supreme Court in similar type of case even after examination of prosecutrix during trial canceled the bail order. Similarly in Jaipal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (Supra), Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that :- “In this case, it appears that benefit of bail has been granted to the accused-respondent by the learned Sessions Judge with a finding that the prosecutrix is a consenting party, but at the same time this material and relevant fact has been overlooked by him that at the time of alleged incident the prosecutrix was a minor and, therefore, her consent, if any, is of no consequence. It is to be noted that in the first order whereby the bail was declined to the respondent it was specifically observed by the Court below that the date of birth of prosecutrix is 09.04.2015 and she was minor at the time of alleged incident, but this fact was deliberately overlooked at the time of passing of the impugned order.” 8. Observing the aforesaid facts, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court canceled the bail order. The Date of Birth of prosecutrix is 5/12/2000 and earlier bail application was cancelled by leaned Sessions Judge considering the petitioner prosecutrix as minor but in the impugned subsequent bail order, learned Sessions Judge overlooked the DOB of prosecutrix and considering her statement recorded during trial that she is consenting party allowed the bail application. 9. In the case in hand no doubt the prosecutrix has already been examined. However, few other material witnesses have yet to be examined. 10. From the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and FIR itself, it reveals that age of prosecutrix is less than 15 years, therefore, she is minor and threats were extended to prosecutrix as well as her family members, therefore, I feel that learned Sessions Judge should not have been granted bail to the respondent No. 2 ignoring all the material substantial aspects pointed by learned counsel for the petitioner which were the relevant considerations. 11. 11. For the foregoing reasons, I allow this application whereby setting aside the impugned order passed by leaned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District and respondent No. 2 is directed to surrender himself before the Trial Court and on his surrendering learned Trial Court is directed to take him in custody forthwith. If the respondent himself fails to appear before the Trial Court, necessary steps will be taken by the Trial Court to ensure his custody.