JUDGMENT P K Lohra, J —By the instant appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'Act of 1989') , accused-appellant has challenged order dated 7th of February, 2018 passed by Special Judge, ( POCSO Act, 2012) Pratapgarh (for short, 'learned trial Court') rejecting his post-arrest bail application. 2. In brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that an FIR bearing No.111/2017 came to be lodged against appellant and three others at Police Station Salamgarh, District Pratapgarh for offences under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376 and 120-B IPC, Section 3(1) (b) (1) of the Act of 1989 and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act. After completion of investigation, all the accused-persons including appellant were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences. At the behest of appellant an endeavour was made before learned trial Court but the same did not fructify to his advantage, and therefore, he along with co-accused Pawan preferred an appeal bearing No.1535/2017 before this Court and the said appeal was dismissed on 17th of February, 2017 as not pressed with liberty to file fresh after recording statements of prosecutrix. Later on, during trial statements of prosecutrix were recorded and the appellant applied for bail but same was declined. It is argued by learned counsel that though prosecutrix P.W.1, in her examination-in-chief, has shown involvement of appellant in commission of offence, however, during crossexamination, she has not attributed any role to the appellant and precisely the allegation of rape is against co-accused Deepak Jain. It is also submitted by learned counsel that during crossexamination she has not even recognized the appellant. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant is a teenager, who has just completed 18 years of age and as there is no any other criminal antecedent, the learned trial Court ought to have exercised discretion in his favour for grant of bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand has strenuously urged that in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, no interference with the impugned order passed by learned trial Court is warranted. 4. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and the statements of prosecutrix recorded during trial. 5. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand has strenuously urged that in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, no interference with the impugned order passed by learned trial Court is warranted. 4. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and the statements of prosecutrix recorded during trial. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account age of the appellant and the fact that there is no other criminal antecedent, and taking into account the fact that he is not having any other criminal antecedent, I feel persuaded to interfere with the impugned order 6. Accordingly, instant appeal is allowed, the impugned order passed by learned trial Court is set aside and it is ordered that accused-appellant, Deepak S/o Shri Karulal Choudhary, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.111/2017 of Police Station Salamgarh, District Pratapgarh, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50, 000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25, 000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.