JUDGMENT A. P. THAKER, J. 1. Admit. Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned APP waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate, Mr.Darshan K. Varandani, waives service on behalf of respondent no.2. 2. This is an appeal under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at the instance of the appellant - original accused against the order dated 18.1.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kutchh, in Criminal Misc. Application No.44 of 2019. 3. It is the case of the appellant that an FIR has been registered against him being C.R.No.I-78 of 2018 with Mandavi Police Station, Kutchh for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 (1), 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (h), 5 (j) (2) and 6 of POCSO Act, Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act as well as Section 3 (2)(5) (a), 3 (2) (5) and 3 (1) (w) (1) (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. According to appellant, he has been made as accused in the said offence and he was arrested on 8.10.2018. According to the appellant, he had preferred bail application for regular bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kutchh, being Criminal Misc. Application No.44 of 2019, which came to be rejected vide order dated 18.1.2019. Against this order, the appellant has preferred present appeal. 4. Heard Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and learned advocate, Mr.Darshan K. Varandani on behalf of respondent no.2. 5. Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the appellant has mainly contended the same submissions which are narrated in the memo of appeal. He submitted that the appellant is falsely implicated in the offence. He submitted that the FIR is filed four and half months after the alleged incident. He also submitted that since the incident had alleged to have happened in the evening, it is not possible that the accused could not have been seen by anyone kidnapping the prosecutrix or committing the offence. He also submitted that looking to the medical papers, there is no external injury on the prosecutrix and therefore, it cannot be said that there is any offence under section 376 of IPC. He also submitted that looking to the medical papers, there is no external injury on the prosecutrix and therefore, it cannot be said that there is any offence under section 376 of IPC. He submitted that the mother of the accused is a Member of Panchayat and as she has taken action against the relative of the complainant, this false FIR is filed against present appellant. He further submitted that, in the present case, investigation is over and charge-sheet is also filed, therefore also, the appellant may be released on bail. It is further submitted that the appellant is a young person and there are no criminal antecedents, therefore, it is prayed that this Court may consider this appeal and release the appellant on regular bail. 6. Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State has vehemently submitted that the allegations against the present appellant are very serious in nature. She has submitted that the allegations against the accused are of kidnapping and committing rape. She further submitted that the victim is minor and looking to the allegations of kidnapping and rape and since an offence under POCSO Act is registered against the appellant, the appellant may not be released on bail. In view of all these, she has prayed to reject the appeal of the appellant for bail. 7. Learned advocate for respondent no.2 has adopted the submissions made by learned APP and submitted that considering the offence in question, the appellant may not be released on bail. 8. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material available on record. At the time of hearing of bail, the Court is required to see whether there is any prima facie case against the accused or not. From the papers available on record, it is alleged that the accused has taken undue advantage of loneliness of the victim and forcibly taken her to a place near Samshan Ghat. It is also alleged that the accused showed knife and then committed rape with her, without the consent of the victim. It is also alleged that the accused threatened the victim not to tell about the incident to anyone, else the accused would kill her brother and sister. It is also required to be considered that the allegations against the accused are of kidnapping and committing rape with a minor girl. It is also alleged that the accused threatened the victim not to tell about the incident to anyone, else the accused would kill her brother and sister. It is also required to be considered that the allegations against the accused are of kidnapping and committing rape with a minor girl. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, in opinion of this Court, this is not a case to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant. 9. In view of the above, this appeal is rejected. The impugned order dated 18.1.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kutchh, in Criminal Misc. Application No.44 of 2019 rejecting the bail application of the present appellant is hereby confirmed.