ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) and (l) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and also under Section 3(1)(w)(i), Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered in respondent/Police Station Crime No.49/2017. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case, that on 08.05.2017 at about 05.00 p.m. the petitioner herein took the victim girl who was aged about 15 years with him to his house and thereafter he pushed her into his house on the cot and closed the door and thereafter accused No.1 went inside the house and the accused No.2 the present petitioner was keeping watch in front of the said house. Then there was screaming noise of the said girl then the persons who were passing through the said place one person Kasheppa Gangappa Lamani and Kariyappa Madar who have seen accused No.2, when he was taking the victim girl and questioned said accused No.2 about the screaming of the victim girl, he replied that there is nothing inside the house and then they were entered the house of accused No.2 and saw the victim girl lying on the cot and at that time accused No.1 wearing the pant and he got down from the cot and went away. After seeing the same ultimately the complaint came to be filed on the basis of which case came to be registered. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner/accused No.2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 4. Learned counsel made the submission that so far as present petitioner is concerned, Section 376 of the IPC is not made applicable. Now the investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Hence, he submitted his continuous detention in the custody is not at all required, hence by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner/accused No.2 may be enlarged on bail. 5. Now the investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Hence, he submitted his continuous detention in the custody is not at all required, hence by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner/accused No.2 may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra the learned HCGP made the submission that looking to the very averments in the complaint and also the statement of the eye-witnesses they go to show that it is the present petitioner who took this girl to his house, pushed her inside their house on the cot and closed the door and then accused no.1 entered into the house and they all heard the screaming noise of the victim girl. Hence, the learned HCGP made submission that looking to these material aspects and also the prosecution material they clearly go to show that it is the present petitioner who is the main cause for committing the said offences and facilitating accused No.1 to commit the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. Hence, he made submission that, in view of the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. 6. Perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the entire charge sheet material produced by the prosecution. Looking to the materials they prima facie go to show that the victim girl was also mentally retarded and the present petitioner took her to his house, pushed her inside the house on the cot, closed the door, thereby he has facilitated accused No.1 to commit the alleged offence, even under Section 376 of IPC. Therefore, looking to the role played by the present petitioner and simply on the ground that he has not involved actually in committing the offence under section 376 of the IPC, he is not entitled to be granted with bail. Looking to the seriousness of the offence and the role played by the present petitioner in bringing the victim girl into his house, I am of the opinion that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. The alleged offences are also punishable under the provisions of the POCSO Act. Hence, the petition is hereby rejected.