JUDGMENT : KULDEEP MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel representing the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor so also learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2. Perused the material available on record. 2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 being aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bikaner, District Bikaner in Cr. Misc. Case No. 1336/2023 (CIS No. 1336/2023) rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 162/2023, Police Station Khajuwala, District Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 376-D and 302 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(Vi) and 3(2)(Vii) of the SC/ST Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that as per the FIR, co-accused Dinesh Bishnoi, Bhagirath and Manoj committed sexual assault-rape upon deceased Mst. ‘S’ who was aged about 20 years. It was submitted that as per the FIR, Mst. ‘S’ died due the alleged incident. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant has not been named in the FIR. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no direct evidence available on record indicating involvement of the appellant in the commission of alleged crime. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that as a matter of fact, the deceased was having consensual relationship with main accused-Dinesh Kumar and on the date of alleged incident, the deceased and main-accused mutually exchanged several mobile calls, whereafter, the deceased voluntarily reached the place of incident and developed physical relationship with main accused, however, due to excessive bleeding during intercourse, the deceased passed away. It was submitted that the chain of events thus, suggest that the appellant is in no way connected with the commission of alleged crime. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant who is aged about 33 years is in judicial custody since 05.07.2023; no recovery is due to be made from him. 5. Learned counsel lastly submitted that challan against the appellant has already been filed and even as per the challan, the appellant had not sexually assaulted-raped the deceased. The trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. 6. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the appellant on bail. 7. 5. Learned counsel lastly submitted that challan against the appellant has already been filed and even as per the challan, the appellant had not sexually assaulted-raped the deceased. The trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. 6. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the appellant on bail. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. Drawing attention of the Court towards the charge sheet submitted by the investigating agency before competent criminal court after making thorough investigation into the matter, learned counsel submitted that the appellant has committed heinous offences punishable with life imprisonment and minimum sentence of twenty years. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that from the perusal of the charge sheet prepared by the investigating agency after analyzing the statements of various witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and CCTV footage obtained during the course of investigation, it is evident that the appellant not only reached the place of the incident with main accused-Dinesh Kumar but was also guarding the place of incident, by sitting in a room adjacent to the room where the deceased was subjected to sexual assault. It was jointly submitted that as per the challan papers, the appellant on coming to know about the fact that Mst. ‘S’ has succumbed to the sexual assault, ran away from the place of occurrence. 9. Lastly, it was submitted that not only sufficient evidence is available on record indicating active involvement of the appellant in the commission of alleged crime but the record of the case also shows that the appellant had concealed the incident from police and also aided the main-accused Dinesh Kumar in hiding after the incident. 10. Learned counsel thus, prayed that looking to the seriousness of accusations against the appellant, he does not deserve concession of bail in the present case. 11. Having considered rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that during the course of investigation, presence of the appellant in a room adjacent to the room where alleged incident took place has been established. This Court also prima facie finds that the CCTV footage recovered during investigation, of the date when alleged incident occurred also prima facie indicates involvement of the appellant in alleged crime. This Court also prima facie finds that the CCTV footage recovered during investigation, of the date when alleged incident occurred also prima facie indicates involvement of the appellant in alleged crime. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecutrix and main accused were known to each other previously and had exchanged number of calls on the date of alleged incident and the prosecutrix voluntarily reached the place of incident cannot be appreciated at this stage when the deposition of the Investigating Officer and the complainant have not yet been recorded before competent criminal court. 12. This Court at this juncture prima facie finds that challan papers prima-facie establish the guilt of the appellant and therefore, this Court keeping in view the seriousness of accusations and severity of punishment finds it difficult to accept the prayer to enlarge the appellant on bail at this stage. Thus, the application for bail is rejected. 13. It is however, made clear that the appellant shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after recording of the statements of the complainant and Investigating Officer before competent criminal court. 14. It is expected from the competent criminal court that the statements of complainant and Investigating Officer will be recorded on priority basis.