ORDER : This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Karatagi P.S. Crime No.66/2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, besides Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Since from the date of arrest, the petitioner is in judicial custody. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is praying for enlargement of the petitioner on regular bail among the grounds urged therein. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of the complaint filed by Sri. Mallikarjuna, the father of the victim girl Deepa, aged about 17 years, case came to be registered. The complainant, being the father of the victim girl has stated in his complaint that when he along with his wife and children were present in the house, his daughter Deepa went outside the house saying that she wants to get the photocopies of all her school records for the purpose of scholarship. But she did not return back to the house. Subsequently, the complainant searched her but she could not be traced and even her mobile was also switched off and all efforts made by him went in vain. The complainant informed the same to his wife and also his brother and thereafter, they also did not trace the victim. On 08.05.2017, the complainant lodged a missing complaint before the respondent Police, which, initially, came to be registered against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. Subsequently after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376 and 506 of IPC, besides Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner accused and the learned HCGP for the respondent State. Perused the entire records consisting the statements of the witnesses and also mahazar conducted by the Investigating Officer. During the course of investigation it reveals that the accused said to be abducted the victimDeepa aged about 17 years and had forcible sexual intercourse against her will. 4. Perused the entire records consisting the statements of the witnesses and also mahazar conducted by the Investigating Officer. During the course of investigation it reveals that the accused said to be abducted the victimDeepa aged about 17 years and had forcible sexual intercourse against her will. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments, contended that the accused is an innocent person for the alleged offences and he has been lugged into the alleged crime merely because the accused frequently visiting the house of the brother of the victim and also acquainted with the victim, whereas the statement of the victim recorded by the concerned Police during the course of investigation, reveals that the accused said to be taken the victim to the various places without any resistance made by her and took her to Hubballi and also to Bengaluru and stayed there. Therefore, the offence under Section 376 does not arise, the accused is implicated in the alleged crime as he abducted the victim aged about 17 years and also made confinement in a room against her will and had committed sexual assault. 5. It is further contended that the medical opinion report reveals as “the possibility of remote sexual intercourse” and even from the medical opinion report, it is not forthcoming that the victim has undergone sexual intercourse by this accused against her will. Whereas, the medical report, it is relating to the victim, it reveals as that there are no incriminating materials, it is against the accused, more particularly for the offence under Section 376 of IPC which has been including in charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer before the concerned Special Court. The report it reveals as the victim might have undergone sexual intercourse, but there is no specific overt act attributed against the accused relating to the abduction of the victim and also taken her against her will to various places and also made her confinement in a room and had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim, as stated in her statement said to be recorded by the Investigating Officer and laid the charge sheet against the accused. 6. It is further contended that since from the date of arrest, the petitioner is in judicial custody and moreover charge sheet has been laid. Therefore, the accused does not require for Investigating Agency in any further. 6. It is further contended that since from the date of arrest, the petitioner is in judicial custody and moreover charge sheet has been laid. Therefore, the accused does not require for Investigating Agency in any further. As the accused supposed to be kept behind the bar for longer period, his career would be ruined in society. This fact will requires to be considered apart from other grounds urged that the accused is ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail to him and moreover the accused he is of Bihar State, it cannot be a ground for rejection of bail petition filed by the accused. All these grounds are urged emphatically by the learned counsel for the petitioner in seeking the relief of bail. 7. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently contended that the complainant being the father of the victim girl Deepa, aged about 17 years and also being a college student. That on filing of the complaint by the complainant, who being the father of the victim girl that this accused said to be abducting the victim girl and had forcible sexual intercourse on her against her will and also made her to confinement in a room. The accused who extending life threat to her saying, if she is not extending her wishes to love him that he would commit suicide by consuming poison and also accused made attempt by cutting his hand with means of blade. All these tactics made by the accused to extending the wishes by the victim to have love affair with him. The same is borne out in the statement said to be recorded by the Investigating Officer relating to the victim and also the materials collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Wherein the charge sheet laid including the offence under Section 376 of IPC. As the accused supposed to be released on bail, certainly he would come in the way of prosecution to expedite the case and the accused required for facing of trial for the alleged offences in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer. On all these grounds, the learned HCGP seeking for dismissal of the bail petition filed by the petitioner. 8. On all these grounds, the learned HCGP seeking for dismissal of the bail petition filed by the petitioner. 8. Keeping in view of the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relating to the missing of the victim girl Deepa, aged about 17 years are concerned, it is relevant to state that her father Mallikarjun, who had filed a missing complaint before the respondent – Police alleging that his daughter Deepa, aged about 17 years, studying PUC in Gavi Siddeswara College, Koppal is missing. On 22.04.2017 at about 05:00 p.m., while the complainant was residing in the house, consisting his wife and other three children, his daughter Deepa said to be informed to him that she is going out from the house saying as she want to get xerox copies of certificates in order to get scholarship and she did not return to the house. Though the complainant made contact to her cell phone, the same was switched off. As the complainant Mallikarjun, father of the victim girl had given description about the victim before the Police while giving missing complaint. Based upon the complaint, initially a case in Crime No.66/2017 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. Subsequent to registration of the case against the accused, the Investigating Officer taken up the case for investigation and investigated the case and thereafter laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of IPC, beside Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The victim girl Deepa, aged about 17 years, she has given statement before the Investigating Officer on 08.05.2017 that the accused Vikki Gupta, who alleged to be working in a factory, where her brother was also working, as he being the abode of Bihar State, that the accused used to visit the house of her brother, wherein she was also be present, by that time, accused had been acquainted to her. That the accused extended wishes to have love affair with him, but she has not responded to the said things made by the accused, as she being the minor. Despite of it, accused had insisting her to have love affair with him. But she was afraid about to inform the said fact to her parents. 9. That the accused extended wishes to have love affair with him, but she has not responded to the said things made by the accused, as she being the minor. Despite of it, accused had insisting her to have love affair with him. But she was afraid about to inform the said fact to her parents. 9. As the accused being extending his wises to her have a love affairs about 8 to 9 months back while she completed her PUC examination, by the time her brother who had been to Bengaluru for attending some work, in the meanwhile the victim girl Deepa and also her mother had left Ginagera and had been to Siddapur. As while they were residing in Siddapur, by that time, Vikki Gupta had telephonically contacted to the phone number of her mother and had conversation with her also and also extended wishes to love him and if she does not wish to have love affair with him, that he would commit suicide by consuming poison and also be made attempt to cut his hand with means of blade. On these consequences which was extended by the accused and on the afraid made by the accused that the victim had accompanied with him to Hubballi and from there they boarded in a train towards Bengaluru and after reaching Bengaluru, with an auto rickshaw the accused took the victim to Vinayaka Nagar and the accused made to search a rented room and made her confinement in a room, wherein the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her. The same has been reflected in a statement given by the victim before the Investigating Officer on 08.05.2017. 10. Whereas, the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation recorded the statement of the Savitri, being the mother of the victim and so also recorded the statement of the victim and also recorded the statement of Mallikarjun, being the father of the victim, wherein the statement of victim reveals that Deepa, aged about 17 years and also founds to be that the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her and also extended life threat to her, if she does not wish to have love affair with him. Whereas, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the accused, it consisting the statement of witnesses and so also the mahazar which is conducted by the Investigating Officer in the presence of panch witnesses including the victim who had been to examination for medical test regarding her age. But the victims date of birth is 11.05.2007 as regards the certificate secured by the Investigating Officer and same included in the charge sheet, whereas, her age is about 17 years and also studying in PUC in Gavi Siddeswara College, Koppal and all these facts are borne out in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer before the concerned Special Court for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and besides Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, as wherein the accused alleged to have committed heinous offence against the victim who is said to be minor and also a college going student. 11. Therefore, it is said that there are no justifiable grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner for seeking the relief of bail. But the counsel emphatically contended that the accused aged about 21 years and if the accused kept behind the bar, his career would be ruined. But the involvement of the accused in heinous offence that too be against the victim who is aged about 17 years and also had sexual intercourse with the victim girl against her will are concerned, it is said that if the accused supposed to be released on bail, certainly there shall an adverse impact on the society. 12. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid reasons as well as in the circumstances of case, I am of the considered opinion that the accused does not deserve for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.