JUDGMENT: B.N. Karia, J. 1. The appellant preferred one Criminal Misc. Application No. 399 of 2021 before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO) & 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch u/s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge the appellant on regular bail on account of offence being registered vide I-C.R. No. 39 of 2013 with Amod Police Station, Bharuch for the offence punishable u/s. 363, 366, 376, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3(1) (12) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act") as well as u/s. 4, 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act wherein, the learned Special Judge (POCSO) & 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch rejected the said application on 11.06.2021. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred present appeal u/s. 14A of the Atrocities Act. 3. However notice was served to the respondent No. 2, she was not remained present either in person or through an advocate to contest this criminal appeal. 4. Heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned APP for the respondent-State. 5. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that appellant had been falsely implicated in the said offences. That FIR came to be filed after delay of four days and no satisfactory explanation was given by the complainant in the FIR. That on plain reading of the report of the Medical officer, it reveals that there is no injury on the body or internal parts of the prosecutrix, and therefore, it cannot be said that the force or pressure was used upon the prosecutrix. That investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO) & 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch and release the appellant on bail. 6. Learned APP for the respondent-State has strongly objected the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the appellant and submitted that appellant was involved in serious offence, therefore, no lenient view can be taken by this Court. Hence, it was requested by learned APP for the respondent-State to dismiss the present appeal. 7. As the respondent No. 2 was remained absent, no arguments was advanced. 8. Hence, it was requested by learned APP for the respondent-State to dismiss the present appeal. 7. As the respondent No. 2 was remained absent, no arguments was advanced. 8. Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant as well as learned APP for the respondent-State and police papers produced on record, it appears that present appellant was arrested on 27.01.2021 in connection with the FIR being I-C.R. No. 39 of 2013 with Amod Police Station, Bharuch for the offence punishable u/s. 363, 366, 376, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3(1) (12) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act") as well as u/s. 4, 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act. As per the case of the prosecution, on 14.07.2013, one Sumitraben Chandubhai Vasava, respondent No. 2 herein had lodged the FIR/complaint alleging that on 04.07.2013, the accused No. 1 and 2 had abducted the complainant from the legal guardianship of her parents and took her on motorcycle to Amod village and thereafter, the accused No. 1 took the complainant to Chotila, Virpur and Mangrol villages in truck and committed sexual intercourse without her consent at different villages and beaten her knowing that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and the accused No. 2 and 3 had helped the accused No. 1 in abducting the complainant and thus, the accused persons have committed the offence. As per the submissions made by learned advocate appearing for the appellant that the appellant was aged 18 years old at the time of incident and appellant himself and the prosecutrix both were in love affair since last three years but the prosecutrix was aged 17 years old and the appellant asked her to wait till both attains age of majority and thereafter, they will get married. 9. As per the submissions made by learned advocate appearing for the appellant, parents of the prosecutrix were forcing her to marry to other person of her community and therefore, the prosecutrix had threatened the appellant to take her else she will commit suicide, and therefore, appellant had no other option but to accompany her. 9. As per the submissions made by learned advocate appearing for the appellant, parents of the prosecutrix were forcing her to marry to other person of her community and therefore, the prosecutrix had threatened the appellant to take her else she will commit suicide, and therefore, appellant had no other option but to accompany her. It further appears that age of the prosecutrix is 17 years as per the complaint and hence, she was in a position to understand what is right or wrong and as per the say of the prosecutrix, she had been taken to different places and she had been forced for sexual intercourse for several times at different places but, she had not raised any alarm by calling help. 10. It further appears on plain reading of report of the Medical officer that there is no injury on the body or internal parts of the prosecutrix, and therefore, it cannot be said that the force or pressure was used upon the prosecutrix. It further appears that FIR came to be filed after delay of four days and no satisfactory explanation was given by the complainant in the FIR. It also appears that investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, there is no chance of tampering or hampering with the evidences and witnesses of the prosecution. It also appears that an amicable settlement was also done with the intervention of the elders of the village at the relevant point of time and the prosecutrix had married to other person and now she is having one child out of her wedlock. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, prayer sought for by the present appellant requires consideration. Hence, this Court is of the view that present appeal deserves consideration. 11. In the result, present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 11.06.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO) & 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Criminal Misc. Application No. 399 of 2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on regular bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 11. In the result, present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 11.06.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO) & 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Criminal Misc. Application No. 399 of 2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on regular bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that appellant shall; [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 India without prior permission of the concerned Trial Court; [e] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating officer 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; 12. 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. 13. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. Notice is discharged. 14. Direct service is permitted.