Judgment : 1. In this petition filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner arrayed as accused No.4 in Crime No.472/12 of H.A.L. Police Station, has sought for an order to enlarge him on bail. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is as under: 3. One Geetha alias Lavanya, daughter of informant Smt.Rama Devi was married to accused No.1- V.Bhaskar Reddy on 4.4.2001 at Thirupathi. From the said wedlock, she gave birth to a daughter and son in the year 2002 and 2003 respectively. From 2007, the said Geetha alias Lavanya and accused No.1 along with their two children started living in Bangalore in a rented house. On 18.11.2012, the said Geetha was admitted to Yashomathi Hospital with a history of fall in the bathroom and later she was shifted to Manipal hospital where she died on 27.10.2012. On 18.11.2012, Smt.Rama Devi, grand mother of two children visited Bangalore to see her grand children and at that time, the grand daughter said to have told her that her father viz., accused No.1 had sexually molested her. Shocked by the said revelations, she took the grand children with her to Chennai on 26.11.2012 with the consent of her son-in-law viz., accused No.1. Thereafter, on 5.12.12, Smt.Rama Devi lodged a report before the H.A.L. police requesting the police to take action against her son-in-law and also to help her to keep the custody of the two grand children with her. On the basis of the said report, H.A.L police registered a case in Crime No.472/12 initially for the offences punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code against accused No.1-V.Bhaskar Reddy. It appears the said V.Bhaskar Reddy was arrested on 6.12.12 and he was enlarged on bail on 7.12.12 by the jurisdictional Magistrate. Thereafter, on 27.1.2013, the said Rama Devi stated to have submitted a detailed report before the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, making serious allegations against her son-in-law and few others viz., T.K.Mallikarjun Reddy; Pani-a friend of T.K.Mallikarjun Reddy, a lady by name Sunitha V.A. and T.K.Mahesh Reddy. Thereafter, on 27.1.2013, the said Rama Devi stated to have submitted a detailed report before the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, making serious allegations against her son-in-law and few others viz., T.K.Mallikarjun Reddy; Pani-a friend of T.K.Mallikarjun Reddy, a lady by name Sunitha V.A. and T.K.Mahesh Reddy. The said report was forwarded to HAL police, based on which, HAL police added the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act and Sections 3,4,7 & 8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 to the case already registered in Crime No.472/12 and took up investigation. 4. During investigation, the statement of the two grand children of the complainant were recorded. The statement of grand daughter of the complainant who was stated to be the victim, revealed the name of one Chandra in addition to other persons named in the further report. On the basis of the name disclosed by the victim as Chandra, petitioner was arrayed as accused No.4 and he was arrested on 29.1.2013 and since then he has been in judicial custody. After completing the investigation, the I.O. has now filed the charge sheet against seven accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail before the learned Sessions Judge came to be rejected, therefore, he is before this Court. The petitioner has contended that he is innocent and there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he is guilty of any of the offences alleged and therefore, he is entitled for an order of bail. 5. The petition is opposed by the State inter alia on the ground that at this stage, the statement of victim recorded by the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prima facie indicates the complicity of this petitioner in the commission of the heinous crime. Therefore, the petitioner, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offences alleged, is not entitled for the relief of bail. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the records made available. 7. Therefore, the petitioner, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offences alleged, is not entitled for the relief of bail. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the records made available. 7. As noticed supra, in the earliest report lodged before the police, based on which case came to be registered, the allegations made were only against accused No.1 regarding sexually molesting his own minor daughter. It was only in the further report made by the informant on 27.1.2013, allegations were made against other persons who are stated to be the friends and relatives of accused No.1. Even in that further report, as could be seen from a copy thereof, the name of this petitioner is not indicated. No doubt, serious allegations have been made in the said further report submitted to the Commissioner of Police. Nevertheless the name of this petitioner does not find place therein except mentioning a friend of accused No.2-T.K.Mallikarjun Reddy. According to the charge sheet papers, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the I.O. some time prior to 28.1.13 and a perusal of the said statement indicates that the victim has referred to the name of accused No.1-V.Bhaskar Reddy, accused No.2-Mallikarjun Reddy, accused No.3-Pani and one Chandra and accused No.7-Sunitha. 8. Even according to the learned State Public Prosecutor, subsequently the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C was recorded by the learned Magistrate on 26.3.2013. Copy of the same is made available for perusal of this Court and even in the said statement, reference is made to one Chandra in addition to the other persons. 9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was never called as Chandra but he is called as Chandrashekar. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that during investigation no steps were taken to fix the identity of this petitioner as the one referred to in the statement of the victim as Chandra. 9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was never called as Chandra but he is called as Chandrashekar. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that during investigation no steps were taken to fix the identity of this petitioner as the one referred to in the statement of the victim as Chandra. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that though in the original first information submitted by the informant, certain allegations have been made immediately within 24 hours as required by law, the victim was not medically examined and even the examination was said to have been done by a male doctor, contrary to the law, in Ambedkar Medical College Hospital and that examination did not suggest any indication of the victim having been subjected to any kind of sexual abuses. 10. According to the prosecution, the grand son of the informant was also abused by some of these accused persons for unnatural sexual activity and his statement was also recorded by the police during investigation. 11. Perusal of the statement of the said victim does not indicate the name of this petitioner. No doubt, from the materials on record, at this stage, there are reasonable grounds to indicate that the two victims have been subjected to sexual abuse and the acts complained to are of heinous in nature. However, merely because the materials on record prima facie indicates commission of heinous crime on two minor victims, one cannot readily presume that the petitioner was responsible for the said act. In the absence of any material to connect as noticed supra in the initial reports, the name of this petitioner is not mentioned nor any specific role was assigned to him. In the alleged statement of the victim said to have been recorded during investigation some time prior to 28.1.2013, reference has been made to a name called Chandra. However, the I.O. has not taken any steps to fix the identity of this petitioner to the person referred to as Chandra in the statement of the victim, though this petitioner was arrested on 29.1.2013 and has been in judicial custody since then. 12. However, the I.O. has not taken any steps to fix the identity of this petitioner to the person referred to as Chandra in the statement of the victim, though this petitioner was arrested on 29.1.2013 and has been in judicial custody since then. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record, at this stage, I am of the considered opinion that there are no prima facie materials to indicate the complicity of this petitioner for the commission of the offences alleged. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for nearly 7 months. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 13. Hence, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.472/12 of H.A.L. Police Station, Bangalore City, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two local sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Sessions Judge and subject to the further conditions that: (i) He shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner; (ii) He shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all hearing dates without fail; (iii) He shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case and (iv) He shall not leave the country without express permission thereof from jurisdictional Court.