JUDGMENT : A.V. Chandrashekara, J. 1. The present petition is filed by the State requesting this court to cancel the bail granted by the VI Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Mysuru, in S.C. 78/15. 2. The learned judge has enlarged the respondent herein who is the sole accused in a criminal case in Crime No. 89/14, a case registered by the respondent police. After concluding investigation, charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 343, 376, 506, I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act, for brevity). 3. The facts leading to the granting of bail to the respondent-accused on 10.8.2015 and filing of this petition for cancellation of bail are as follows: (a) On the first information lodged by a minor girl aged about 17 years, the respondent police chose to register a case in Crime No. 89/14 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 343, 376, 506, I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. She is a resident of Gundurao Nagar, Mysuru City, and is living along with her parents in a rented house. She has failed in SSLC and her date of birth is 11.4.1997. As on the date of lodging first information, she was aged 17 years 6 months. Her elder sister's marriage was performed a year prior to the filing of first information and she had come home for delivery. (b) Shivabasanna-accused herein is the son of a relative of her brother-in-law and uncle and aunt of her brother-in-law had come to her house requesting her parents to perform her marriage with the accused. Her parents had expressed their inability to perform the marriage as they had performed their elder daughter's marriage just a year ago. Since her mother was not keeping well, her father had taken her to Bengaluru and therefore, they had left her in the house of her senior maternal aunt in J.P. Nagar, Mysuru. (c) At 6.00 p.m. on 3.11.2014, the accused came to the house in which she was staying in J.P. Nagar and told her that he wanted to speak to her. He took her in a motorcycle and left her near Chamundeshwari temple stating that he would come within a few minutes as he had some work in Malgudi Hotel where he was working. He took her in a motorcycle and left her near Chamundeshwari temple stating that he would come within a few minutes as he had some work in Malgudi Hotel where he was working. Since it was Karthik Somawar, the temple was open and she was there till 9.30 p.m. He came there and took her to a room in Lakshmi Building on Kalidasa Road. After having food, she requested him to drop her back to her aunt's house and in spite of request, he did not allow her to go from the room and wanted her to remain in the room. After some time, she got sleep and at that time, the accused touched her and raped her forcibly in spite of her protest. (d) On the next morning, at 6.00 a.m. he left the room stating that he wanted to bring vegetables to the hotel by locking the door from outside. According to her, the accused was providing her food and raping her forcibly. According to her, accused raped her throughout the night. On 5.11.2014, she had menstruation and in spite of her request not to touch her, he had forcible sexual contact, as a result of which she became very weak. He had threatened her not to disclose the same to anybody, and if she were to disclose, he would murder her parents. (e) Because of her persistence, she brought him to her maternal aunt's house at 6.00 p.m. on 6.11.2014 and she disclosed in detail as to what happened to her aunt-Smt. Radha and uncle-Lakshman and brother-in-law, Girish. Since her mother was not keeping well, they decided not to disclose the same to anybody and to disclose to her father after he returned. Her father returned on 7.11.2014 and once again all of them decided to lodge a complaint. Therefore she came along with her father, aunt-Smt. Nagarathna and one Dasharath and lodged first information. She wanted suitable action against the accused since she had been confined in his house for 4 days and raping her forcibly. 4. The accused was in judicial custody and investigation was completed and charge sheet is filed. An application had been filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused before the special court at Mysuru. The learned SPP had filed detailed objections opposing bail on various grounds. 4. The accused was in judicial custody and investigation was completed and charge sheet is filed. An application had been filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused before the special court at Mysuru. The learned SPP had filed detailed objections opposing bail on various grounds. The learned judge has enlarged the accused on bail by assigning reasons as found in paragraph 9 of the order. Four conditions have been imposed by the learned special judge while releasing the accused on bail and they are as follows: 1. Accused shall not tamper or terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 2. Accused shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged against him. 3. Accused shall not cause any hindrance in conducting the trial. 4. Accused shall produce address proof of himself and his surety. 5. Several grounds have been urged in the present petition filed under Section 439(2), Cr.P.C. It is contended that the learned judge should not have enlarged the accused on bail when a serious allegation of rape committed on a minor girl is made. Granting of bail is opposed to settled principles connected in a case of this nature. According to the prosecution, the learned judge should not have enlarged him on bail when prima facie materials are placed on record in regard to the victim being confined in a room for 3 days and raping her continuously. In the light of the defence taken on behalf of the accused, there is every likelihood of the victim and her parents being threatened by the accused and his men. 6. It is contended that the minimum punishment contemplated for the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act will not be less than 7 years and can even extend up to imprisonment for life. It is contended that the minor girl was virtually induced by the accused and later on she was kidnapped with the intention of raping her. It is contended that it is too premature to disbelieve the materials collected by the police and the impugned judgment is opposed to facts, law and probabilities. 7. Learned counsel representing the respondent accused has opposed the petition vehemently arguing that the learned judge has considered all the materials placed on record in right perspective, keeping in mind the delay in lodging the complaint and defence set up on behalf of the accused. 8. 7. Learned counsel representing the respondent accused has opposed the petition vehemently arguing that the learned judge has considered all the materials placed on record in right perspective, keeping in mind the delay in lodging the complaint and defence set up on behalf of the accused. 8. After going through the documents and hearing the learned counsel for the accused and learned Government Pleader, the following point arises for the consideration of this court: Whether the trial court is justified in granting bail to the accused in the present case? REASONS 9. Admittedly the victim girl was a minor, though her age was 17 years six months as on the date of the offence. A serious allegation is made by her against the accused in luring her to go with him and later on taking her to a room and confining her in the said room for three days and raping her continuously. It is her allegation that he threatened her that her parents would be murdered if she were to disclose the same to anybody. The reasons assigned by the learned judge to release the accused on bail are found in paragraph 9 of the impugned order. It is reproduced below: 'So looking to complaint averments itself, it is very much clear that there is a delay of five days in lodging complaint about alleged offence committed by accused. Further in the complaint itself, it is categorically stated that complainant victim girl a date of birth is 11.4.1997 and she was aged about 17 years 6 months old at the time of incident. So she ought to have made attempt to escape from the clutches of the accused if really accused had wrongfully confined her by keeping in a room. Further if really victim girl was residing in her elder aunt's house and she was kidnapped by accused on 3.11.2014, elder aunt of the victim girl or any other relative of elder aunt of the victim girl ought to have lodged missing complaint. Further looking to complaint averments itself, it is clear that accused is none other than the son of aunt of victim girl's elder sister's husband. Further it is specific defence mentioned ion the written argument submitted by advocate for accused that parents of accused had given a loan of Rs. Further looking to complaint averments itself, it is clear that accused is none other than the son of aunt of victim girl's elder sister's husband. Further it is specific defence mentioned ion the written argument submitted by advocate for accused that parents of accused had given a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the parents of victim girl and accused used to visit the house of victim girl for asking repayment of loan amount, victim girl intended to marry the accused and she informed the same to accused and accused had also agreed to marry victim girl. But the parents of accused without having knowledge of the same had finalized marriage alliance of accused in Bengaluru with some other girl and engagement was fixed. Victim girl coming to know about the said fact lodged a false complaint as to compel the accused to marry her. In the complaint itself contended that parents of the accused were asking victim girl to give her in marriage to accused to the parents of victim girl and parents of victim girl stated that after lapse of 2-3 years they would perform the marriage of victim girl as there is loan which has been made at the time of performing of marriage of their elder daughter. So looking to defence taken by accused as well as complaint averments and also looking to delay in lodging complaint with regard to incident, it appears that it cannot be ruled out that there are no chances of false implication of accused in this case. Moreover as per FSL report no seminal stain detected in the materials collected by IO through doctor during investigation. Further the averments of the accused in the bail petition that he is permanently residing at the address shown in the bail application is not disputed. Hence it is clear that the presence of the accused can be secured at the time of trial. There are no materials on record to show that the accused may tamper with prosecution witnesses. Further apprehensions of prosecution may also be met with by imposing stringent conditions. Hence it is clear that the presence of the accused can be secured at the time of trial. There are no materials on record to show that the accused may tamper with prosecution witnesses. Further apprehensions of prosecution may also be met with by imposing stringent conditions. So considering all these facts and circumstances and also looking to the nature of offences and since the alleged offence against accused are not punishable with death or life imprisonment, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary power to grant bail to accused in this case. Hence, I answer point No. 1 in the affirmative.' The learned judge has considered the defence taken up on behalf of accused stating that the victim should have made attempts to escape from the clutches of the accused if she had been wrongfully confined in the room. It is also opined that if she had been really kidnapped, her aunt would have launched a missing complaint. In the written arguments submitted on behalf of the accused before the special court, it is mentioned that the father of the victim girl had availed a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the parents of the accused and was postponing to repay the same on one pretext or the other. It is alleged that the victim girl intended to marry the accused and she had informed the same to him, and the accused had also agreed to marry her. Since the parents of the accused had finalized his marriage with some other girl and engagement had been fixed, the victim girl came to know about the same and lodged a false complaint. 10. It is understandable as to how the statement of the victim girl and other materials placed on record could have been so easily ignored by the learned judge, relying solely on the defence set up by the accused in the written arguments. 10. It is understandable as to how the statement of the victim girl and other materials placed on record could have been so easily ignored by the learned judge, relying solely on the defence set up by the accused in the written arguments. In the case of [2009] 14 SCC 286 between MASROOR v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER, the Hon'ble apex court has cautioned the court dealing with bail applications not to examine the evidence placed on record elaborately and not to give detailed reasons touching the merits of the case which may prejudice the accused; but there is a need to indicate in such order the reasons for prima facie concluding why bail is granted when he is charged of having committed a serious offence. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble apex court is reproduced below: 12. Normally this court does not interfere with the order of the High Court relating to grant or rejection of bail but in the instant case, having carefully gone through the impugned order, we are constrained to observe that the High Court has completely ignored the basic principles which are to be kept in view while dealing with an application filed under Section 439 of the Code for grant of bail to the second respondent, warranting interference by this court.' 11. In the present case, the reason assigned by the learned judge are found in paragraph 9 of the order. As could be seen from the records, the learned prosecutor had filed detailed objections before the special court along with a copy of the charge sheet. The accused was subjected to custodial interrogation also. The victim girl had been subjected to medical examination. 12. Normally no girl would come forward to lodge a complaint of rape by keeping her chastity at stake. Falsity of the case could be gone into only in a full-fledged trial. The maximum punishment contemplated under section 4 of the POCSO Act can extend up to imprisonment for life with a minimum sentence of seven years. In the case of STATE OF U.P. THROUGH C.B.I. v. AMARMANI TRIPATHI, AIR 2005 SC 3490 , the Hon'ble apex court has held that in an appeal against grant of bail, all aspects that were relevant under section 439 and 437, Cr.P.C. would continue to be relevant. In the case of STATE OF U.P. THROUGH C.B.I. v. AMARMANI TRIPATHI, AIR 2005 SC 3490 , the Hon'ble apex court has held that in an appeal against grant of bail, all aspects that were relevant under section 439 and 437, Cr.P.C. would continue to be relevant. It is further held that though post-bail conduct and supervening circumstances will have to be taken note of while considering an application for cancellation of bail, still they are not the only factors to be considered as in the case of an application for cancellation of bail. It is not as though only the violation of bail conditions or supervening circumstances would be decisive for considering cancellation of bail. The court will not be inhibited in any manner to look into as to whether the court which has granted bail, has really exercised the discretion vested in it judiciously, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials placed on record. 13. In the case of PRASANTA KUMAR SARKAR v. ASHIS CHATERJEE AND ANOTHER, [2010] 14 SCC 496 and in the case of RAM GOVIND UPADHYAY v. SUDARSHAN SINGH, (2002) 3 SCC 598 , the Hon'ble apex court has indicated the following factors to be kept in mind while considering a bail application relating to serious offences: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 14. Thus viewed from any angle, the order passed by the special Court granting bail to the accused is not sustainable. Apart from this, Section 29 of the POCSO Act provides for a reasonable presumption about the case of the prosecution till it is rebutted during the course of trial. Hence this court is of the considered opinion that the case on hand was not a fit case to grant bail to the respondent-accused under Section 439, Cr.P.C. Accordingly the petition filed by the State is to be allowed. 15. Hence this court is of the considered opinion that the case on hand was not a fit case to grant bail to the respondent-accused under Section 439, Cr.P.C. Accordingly the petition filed by the State is to be allowed. 15. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER The petition filed by the State under Section 439(2), Cr.P.C. is allowed. Bail granted by the VI Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Mysuru, in S.C. No. 78/15 by order dated 10.8.2015 is cancelled. The respondent-accused shall surrender before the concerned court. It is made clear that nothing comes in the way of the concerned court to take coercive steps against the respondent to secure his presence. It need not be reiterated that the court to which the case is committed, will have to dispose of the matter as early as possible, keeping in mind the mandate of section 35(2) of the POCSO Act.