ORDER 1. Instant application has been preferred under Section 439 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent Nonamely Suman Devi wife of Moolchand under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the Court of Special Judge, Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & Commissions For Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan), in Criminal Miscellaneous 1st Bail Application No.18/2021 vide its impugned order dated 23.02.2021, in F.I.R. No.406/2020 registered at Police Station Gudhagaurji District Jhunjhunu for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 354 (B), 376/511 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7/8 and 11/12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant submits that the accused-respondent No.2 has supported the other accused-persons in abducting the petitioner/complainant and the other accused attempted to commit rape with her. Counsel further submits that the petitioner/complainant, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., has specifically stated that her mother Smt. Suman Devi was having illicit relation with accused Sarjeet and she used to give sleeping pills to her in night and used to send the accused in her room and accused Sarjeet always committed rape with her, which clearly shows that the accused-respondent No.2 was also involved in the heinous crime. Lastly, counsel prays that the present application be allowed and the liberty of bail, so granted to the accused-respondent No.2 by the Court of learned Special Judge, Jhunjhunu be cancelled forthwith and she may be ordered to be sent behind the bars. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail cancellation application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent No.2 submits that the Investigating Officer did not find any case of abduction of the petitioner/complainant and all the allegations levelled by the petitioner/complainant are found false and fictitious. Hence, the present bail cancellation application be rejected. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Jhunjhunu and the material made available on the record. 6. In Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. & Others., 2020 (2) Cr.L.R. S.C. 472, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- "6. In the case of Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr. 6. In Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. & Others., 2020 (2) Cr.L.R. S.C. 472, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- "6. In the case of Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.1843 of 2019) decided on 5th December, 2019, a coordinate Bench of this Court has discussed the scope of jurisdiction of the appellate Court in setting aside an order of granting bail. The two key factors for interfering with such an order are non-application of mind on the part of the Court granting bail or the opinion of the Court in granting bail is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. In the case of Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [ (2012) 2 SCC 382 ], a two Judge Bench of this Court declined to interfere with an order of the High Court granting bail to an accused having considered the factual features of that case." 7. In the present case, the name of the accused-respondent No.2 does not find place in the impugned F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner/complainant alongwith her father. The petitioner/complainant, in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has not leveled any allegation against the accused-respondent No.2. The petitioner's father and other relevant witnesses, namely Prerna Sharma and Smt. Saroj Sharma have also not leveled any allegation against the accused- respondent No.2 in their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 8. On perusal of impugned bail order dated 23.02.2021, it reveals that the learned trial Court had granted bail to the accused- respondent No.2 on the ground that the name of accused-respondent No.2 does not find place in the impugned F.I.R. and the accused- respondent No.2 is a mother of the petitioner/complainant. 9. Therefore, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and having regard to the circumstances of this case, there has been no irregular or improper exercise of discretion on the part of the Court of Special Judge in granting bail to the accused-respondent No.2. The material available do not justify arriving at the conclusion that the impugned order dated 23.02.2021 suffers from non-application of mind or the reason for granting bail is not borne out from a prima-facie view of the evidence on record. The material available do not justify arriving at the conclusion that the impugned order dated 23.02.2021 suffers from non-application of mind or the reason for granting bail is not borne out from a prima-facie view of the evidence on record. The Court of Special Judge has exercised its discretion in granting bail to accused-respondent No.2. No ex-facie error in the order has been shown by the complainant-petitioner, which would establish exercise of such discretion to be improper. Consequently, the present cancellation application is dismissed.