ORDER : 1. Mr.Manoj Shrimali, learned advocate for Respondent No.2 places on record the affidavit in-reply opposing the grant of regular bail to the appellant. 2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by learned Special (SC – ST Atrocity) Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi dated 15.05.2019 in Criminal Misc. Application No.400 of 2019 whereby, regular bail application, preferred by the appellant in connection with offence registered at C.R.No.I-65 of 2019 dated 26.04.2019 filed before Morbi Taluka Police Station, District: Morbi for the offenses under Section 376(2)(n), 450, 506(2), 354(A) and 509 of the IPC and Sections 3(2) (va), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is rejected. 3. Heard Mr.A.R.Patel, learned advocate for the appellant. He took me to the FIR, as also the papers of charge-sheet. He submits that since about quarter to two years, the appellant is having relations with the first informant. He has submitted that looking at the contents of the FIR, it is clear that the first informant is a consenting party to the act and therefore, it cannot be said that any offence of rape, as such, is committed. He has further submitted that considering the age of the prosecutrix, as also the age of the appellant and length of their relationship though, now claimed to be without consent, the applicant is required to be released on bail. 4. As against that, learned APP, as also Mr.Shrimali, learned advocate for the first informant, submitted that since the appellant has taken disadvantage of the absence of husband of first informant, he should be denied bail. They have further contended that the appellant threatened to misuse the photographs clicked by him and under threat and coercion, the first informant was forced to have relationship. Therefore, they request that this appeal should be dismissed. 5. Following aspects are considered. (A) The investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed. (B) The age of the prosecutrix is 30 years and having a child aged about 12 years. (C) At the same time, the appellant is also married and aged about 28 years. However, it appears that they developed relationship and it continued for about quarter to two years. (A) The investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed. (B) The age of the prosecutrix is 30 years and having a child aged about 12 years. (C) At the same time, the appellant is also married and aged about 28 years. However, it appears that they developed relationship and it continued for about quarter to two years. (D) Though, it is asserted in the FIR that her husband was absent in the house from 13.04.2019 to 19.04.2019 and each day, during that period, the appellant is alleged to have come to her house at midnight while her son was sleeping and now under threat of killing her husband, had physical relations with her. However, it is mentioned in the FIR that because of fear of her husband, she did not complain about it. (E) If any one under any threat, continues any offence, that too, of rape against wish and will of a person repeatedly for 6 days, at-least, there are ample opportunities to raise hue and cry or file complaint against accused even on the next day or repeated next days. Though relations continued for about quarter to two years, no complaint ever filed, if at all, the offence is committed against will and wish of the first informant. 6. Though relations continued for about quarter to two years, no complaint ever filed, if at all, the offence is committed against will and wish of the first informant. 6. Hence, the appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the aforesaid offences registered at C.R.No.I-65 of 2019 dated 26.04.2019 filed before Morbi Taluka Police Station, District: Morbi for the offenses under Section 376(2)(n), 450, 506(2), 354(A) and 509 of the IPC and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on his executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with surety of the like amount on following terms and conditions: [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; [e] the appellant shall not enter revenue limits of Village: Khevariya, Taluka & District: Morbi for a period of one year from today without the permission of the trial Court; [f] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; 7. The Authorities will release the appellant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. At the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the appellant on bail. 8. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.