ORDER : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No. 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 75/2019 of Bhatkal Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 363 read with Section 34 of IPC besides Sections 4 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Since, from the date of his arrest, the accused is in judicial custody. Therefore, the counsel prayed for enlarging the petitioner on bail among the grounds urged therein. 2. It is stated in the complaint that on 27.05.2019 at 7.30 p.m. accused No. 1 secured the victim girl by telephonically to Bazar. The same has been intimated to her mother and she left the house to market area at around 8.10 p.m. The accused No. 1 Danish Ali was there and the complainant went on his motor bike and roamed in the market area, and also his friends came there on other motor bike and the complainant asked the name of said persons, accused No. 1, who told that they are Adil and Shabir. At around 9.15 p.m. and thereafter they went to a hotel Lazi Zone and had ice cream and juice, later went to the house of Mohammed Adil i.e. accused No. 2, who is petitioner herein and they left the bikes and all four persons went in a car to a newly constructing building and all the three accused persons talked to each other and again the complainant/victim girl and all the three persons sat in the car and went back to the house of the petitioner/accused No. 2 Mohammed Adil’s house at 10:00 p.m. and they talked each others and accused No. 3 left the house and went away, again the petitioner/accused No. 2 taken accused No. 1 and complainant in the Car and left to newly constructing house. The petitioner/accused No. 2 made the victim girl and Danish Ali/accused No. 1 to stay in that newly constructing building. The accused No. 1-Danish Ali, who given a kiss to the victim girl-complainant and later the complainant was not aware of the activities of the accused No. 1-Danish Ali. At around 4.30 a.m. in the wee hours, the complainant, who went to attend the nature call, as she was feeling pain on her private parts, subsequently, when asked accused-Danish Ali, he informed to her that he had sexual intercourse on her. At around 4.30 a.m. in the wee hours, the complainant, who went to attend the nature call, as she was feeling pain on her private parts, subsequently, when asked accused-Danish Ali, he informed to her that he had sexual intercourse on her. Subsequently, at around 6.00 a.m. who took the victim girl on his motor bike to Bombay Bazar and later dropped the victim girl to her house. Subsequently, victim girl filed complaint before the respondent-police against the accused persons, by narrating the activities done by them. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has taken me through the complaint filed by the complainant, the FIR recorded by the Police, wherein the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses and conducted the mahazar in the presence of the panch witnesses. It is further contended that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not at all committed the alleged of fences and despite of it, the crime came to be registered by the respondent-Police against the petitioner just to give harassment to him and there is no direct overt act attributed against the petitioner for the alleged offences. However, the petitioner is in judicial custody since form the date of arrest. It is further contended that the presence of the accused is no more required by the investigating agency and he is ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court, while granting bail to him. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 4. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent-State contended that on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, a case came to be registered for the aforesaid alleged offences. It is further contended that the victim girl filed a complaint against the accused persons alleging that the accused No. 2 had assisted and helped the accused No. 1 in committing the rape and the of fence alleged against the accused are heinous in nature. Therefore, it appears that there are prima facie materials against the accused and accordingly, the learned HCGP prayed to reject the bail petition, as the petitioner does not deserve for the bail as sought for. 5. Therefore, it appears that there are prima facie materials against the accused and accordingly, the learned HCGP prayed to reject the bail petition, as the petitioner does not deserve for the bail as sought for. 5. Having regard to the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned HCGP for the respondent-State and having gone through the materials that is the complaint as well as the materials reflected in the FIR and also the materials collected by the Investigating Officer, it reveals this accused facilitated the accused No. 1 to stay with the victim girl at the scene of crime, who is aged about 16 years by providing mat. However, it is necessary at this stage that though enough materials have been collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of Investigation for the alleged offences against the petitioner and the same is enough for proceeding with the case against the accused. But it cannot be said that there are enough materials to decline the relief of bail, merely because the allegation made against the petitioner as he was present with accused No. 1 as narrated in the complaint. 6. Therefore, keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, it is said that it does not require for any detailed discussion, while considering the bail petition filed by the petitioner, as there are substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking for the relief of bail. Whereas, the learned HCGP submits that if the petitioner is supposed to be released on bail, certainly he would come in the way of prosecution case and would destroy the evidence. As this apprehension expressed by the learned HCGP, could be curtailed by imposing certain suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is deserving for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions: (1) The petitioner shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions: (1) The petitioner shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with like sum surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Court as wherein a case in Crime No. 75/2019 of Bhatkal Town P.S. is pending. (2) The petitioner shall not tamper or hamper the case of prosecution witnesses. (3) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e. on first week of Sunday, as per the English monthly calendar in between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. till the conclusion of the case before the concerned SHO. (4) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Uttara Kannada District without prior permission from the concerned Court of law. (5) The petitioner shall not indulge with any other criminal activities henceforth. 7. If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands ceased.