JUDGMENT : RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for informant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. By means of this application, the accused-applicant, Brajesh Bind @Brajesh Kumar Bind, who is said to be involved in Case Crime No. 781 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C. read with Section 5/6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Hereinafter in short referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’) Police Station-Mungra Badshahpur, District-Jaunpur, is seeking enlargement on bail. 3. Learned counsel for accused-applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent; he has been falselyimplicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in Jail since 13.5.2020; accused-applicant is of no criminal antecedent; there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail; prosecutorix was major; she, in her statement, recorded, under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has categorically said to have gone with the applicant and married with the applicant; she is having kids; Writ Petition No. 6996 of 2019, Brijesh Bind and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, was filed before this Court, wherein, vide order, dated 14.3.2019, a protection was granted; age of the prosecutorix has been held to be of 17 years, in the medical age determination test and there is no accusation against the applicant, rather, an admission of marriage with the applicant and voluntarily going with the applicant is there, and as such, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Ramsati @ Shyamsati through her husband vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Department, Lucknow and Others in Writ Petition No. 247 of 2015, dated 7.9.2015, no offence, under Section 363 or 366 is made out because even a minor is a competent guardian for looking after welfare of his minor wife and in the present case, prosecutorix is wedded wife of the applicant, hence, applicant is entitled for bail. 4. 4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail with this contention that occurrence was of 13.9.2017, whereas, medical age determination test was of the year 2019, wherein the Medical Board has determined the age of the prosecutorix of 17 years, i.e. on the date of the occurrence, the prosecutorix was minor, that too, of 15 years of age, which was mentioned in the first information report of about 16 years and a statement, with respect to consent or consensual relationship, made by the prosecutorix is, under her minorship, having no legal sanctity. Prosecutorix was enticed, abducted and taken by the applicant, who was next door neighbour and was also married one. It was mentioned in the first information report, itself, that the wife of the applicant herself apprised about this enticing and taking of minor by the applicant. Life of the prosecutorix as well as wife of the applicant has been put under hell by the applicant, who is saying to be in consensual living and marriage with the prosecutorix, but, this marriage or separation may be having no legal sanctity because the applicant was already a married man having his wife alive, with no judicial separation of any competent court. The aim and object of the Legislation of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, is to protect minor children from sexual assault and in present case, it was a sexual assault, made by the applicant with a minor girl of 15 years, who is next door neighbour of the prosectuorix and has committed offence of this heinous nature and there is every likelihood of tampering with evidence, in case of release on bail, hence, Bail Application deserves to be rejected. 5. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through materials on record, it is apparent that in the medical age determination test, prosecutorix was held to be 17 years of age in the year 2019, whereas, the offence is of the year 2017, thus, at the relevant time, she was of 15 years of age, and as such considering aim and object of the Legislation of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, to protect minor children from sexual assault, heinousness of offence of rape with a minor, likelihood of tampering with evidence, in case of being released on bail, but, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, there appears to be no ground for bail. 6. Accordingly, in view of what has been discussed above, Bail Application stands rejected.