ORDER : Budihal R.B., J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused 8 under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 366-A, 376(2)(g) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, I860, Sections 3, 4,10,11,12 and42 of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 4, 6, 12,17,18,21(1) and 21(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered in the respondent-police station Crime No. 315 of 2012. Brief facts of the case are that on 19-12-2012, C.W. 1-Kavana, who is aged 15 years, was in her house, which is at Kithaburu Grama, Alur Taluk, Hassan District. Accused 1 namely Putta alias Mohana alias Mohanaraj who was also a minor and who was also son of mother-in-law of C.W. 1 took the auto of accused 2 to the house of victim, both of them convinced and assured that they will provide job to the victim, and took her in the said auto. It is alleged that while they were proceeding in Shankaranahalli, Kattaya Road, there was break down of the said auto and it was stopped at Kattaya forest. Then accused 2 took the victim into the forest and raped her. Later, accused 1 raped her in between 3.00 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. On 23-12-2012, when C.W. 1 was going near the old bus stand of Hassan to go to her village, the accused 3 to 6 assured C.W. 1 that they will provide job to her and took her and roamed in Hassan Town till night. After that accused 6 left the victim in the house of C.W. 7 informing that C.W. 1 was his sister and asked C.W. 7 to accommodate C.W. 1, since there were no buses in the night. Again on 24-12-2012, C.W. 7 took C.W. 1 to the new bus stand and left with accused 5 and 6. Accused 5 and 6 showed the film to C.W. 1. In the afternoon, accused 6 requested C.Ws. 8 and 9 to permit them to take half an hour rest in the house of C.W. 8 on the pretext that their sister was not feeling well. Then accused 5 and 6 took the victim to the said house between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. and done forcible intercourse to C.W. 1, one after the other. 8 and 9 to permit them to take half an hour rest in the house of C.W. 8 on the pretext that their sister was not feeling well. Then accused 5 and 6 took the victim to the said house between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. and done forcible intercourse to C.W. 1, one after the other. Again on the same day, accused 3 and 4 took C.W. 1 in the auto to the house of accused 9 which is at industrial area. There C.W. 1 had forcible intercourse with accused 3, 4, 7 and 8, one after the other and kept C.W. 1 in the same house till 25-12-2012. On the morning of 25-12-2012, C.W. 1 had forcible intercourse with accused 3, 9 and 10. Later, on the same day, she had forcible intercourse with accused 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10, one after the other. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of his arguments, submitted that so far as the petitioner is concerned, there are no allegations to show his involvement in the alleged offence. Petitioner never promised the victim that he will secure job to her nor has he committed any offence on her. The learned Counsel further made the submission that the prosecution has not placed prima facie materials to show that the present petitioner is also committed offence which are alleged in the FIR. The learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner is in jail since one year. He submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be released on bail. The learned Counsel further submitted that the even with regard to the allegation made against the petitioner, it is only in respect of the offence under Section 376 of IPC and there are no other allegations in respect of the other offences. 4. As against this, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent submitted that the victim girl in her complaint itself has mentioned the act of successive intercourse by the petitioner along with the other accused persons. The learned HCGP submitted that the investigation is already complete and the charge-sheet is filed. The Investigating Officer has collected the materials and recorded the statement of witnesses. The learned HCGP submitted that the investigation is already complete and the charge-sheet is filed. The Investigating Officer has collected the materials and recorded the statement of witnesses. All these materials would clearly go to show the involvement of this petitioner in committing the offence punishable under Section376 of IPC. He further submitted that the petitioner gave voluntary statement before the Investigating Officer and at the instance of voluntary statement, the Investigating Officer has recovered the mobile phone. He further made the submission that the prima facie materials are placed against the petitioner and hence, submitted to reject the petition. Perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the voluntary statement said to have been made by the petitioner on 28-12-2012. I have also perused the seizure panchanama for seizing the mobile phone in the presence of punch witnesses. The victim girl was aged 15 years at the time of the incident. The averments made in the complaint regarding the forcible intercourse on the victim girl so also the statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation coupled with voluntary statement given by the petitioner, would go to show that the prosecution has made out prima facie case against the present petitioner. So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is delay in lodging the complaint and there is an averment in the complaint that the victim girl was confined in a room and that she was aged about 15 years at the time of incident is concerned, these are all the aspects to be considered during the course of the trial. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, there is prima facie materials to show the involvement of the present petitioner at least to the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. The said offence is serious in nature. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the petition is rejected.