ORDER : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. No. 26/2017. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 05.04.2017, the victim girl in her statement has alleged that she is studying 7th standard at Bendiganahalli government school, she is residing along with her sister Varsha and her husband Srinivas in a rented house belongs to one Akkayaiamma. Petitioner is the grandson of Akkaiyamma and he is aged about 23 years and he is working in airport. In day time, he used to go with sheep for grazing to field, she also going with sheep for grazing to field. Petitioner was known to her from last two years. When she was alone in the house, petitioner visiting her house and sex with her. When she became pregnant and she told the above said fact to the petitioner, he neglected her and stopped talking with her. Due to the fear, she did not told about her pregnancy to her parents. On 04.04.2017, she was suffering from stomach pain, then her parents shifted her to hospital. In the hospital, she gave birth to one female baby. After delivery, hospital authority intimated the same to the complainant police and then the complainant police visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the victim girl and registered the complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered by the respondent police. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the false allegations are made against the petitioner. The allegation that the victim girl as well as the petitioner together going to graze the sheep is also a false allegation. He has not at all committed the alleged offence. He never had sexual intercourse with the victim girl. The learned Counsel relied upon the report of the DNA test and submitted that it is held that the petitioner is not the biological father of the baby. He submits that the petitioner is not involved in committing the offence and therefore, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. He never had sexual intercourse with the victim girl. The learned Counsel relied upon the report of the DNA test and submitted that it is held that the petitioner is not the biological father of the baby. He submits that the petitioner is not involved in committing the offence and therefore, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision in case of Mr. Pascal Mazurier Vs. State of Karnataka decided on 17.10.2012 in Crl. Pet. No. 4308/2012. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP made submission that the report from the laboratory is concerned, the report is with regard to the paternity of the baby. So far as the alleged act of sex is concerned, there is statement of the victim girl in the complaint and also the statement is recorded before the concerned Court under section 164 of CrP.C. wherein she has stated that the present petitioner had committed sexual intercourse with her. The victim girl is aged about 13 years. The material placed by the prosecution clearly goes to show that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to bail. 6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record. I have also perused the order passed by this court on the bail application. 7. Looking to the complaint, it is the victim girl wherein she has stated that it is the petitioner who had acquaintance with her, both of them were going to graze the sheep. The petitioner used to come to the house of the victim whenever she was alone. In the house, he used to have sexual intercourse with her. It is stated that then there was no monthly course and she became pregnant when she got stomach pain, she brought it to the notice of the family members and it was ascertained that she was carrying pregnancy and ultimately, gave birth to female baby. 8. I have also perused the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on oath wherein she has consistently stated with the contents of the complaint. have also perused the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 8. I have also perused the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on oath wherein she has consistently stated with the contents of the complaint. have also perused the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case of the said decision and the facts in the case on hand, they are not exactly one and the same. In para 13 of the judgment, this Court has observed that the statement of Geetha, Jyothi and Charles are in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the question of he tampering the same will not arise. Even the DNA report is in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the question of he tampering the same not arise. Since the investigation is completed, there are no circumstances warranting continuance of petitioner in custody. Looking to the observations made in the said paragraph, the statement of the other three witnesses recorded during investigation and they were favouring the petitioner accused, but it is not so in the case on hand. In the instant case, the victim girl is of 13 years age in addition to that, the petitioner has committed the sexual act. Therefore, material has been placed by the prosecution at this stage by way of complaint before the magistrate Court that he committed the sexual act on the victim girl. Hence, I am of the opinion that prima face case is placed against the petitioner. In respect of the DNA report is concerned, it is the matter of trial. Looking to the gravity and nature of the offence and the age of the victim girl, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly rejected.