JUDGMENT Ashok G Nijagannavar, J. - This petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bailin Crime No.107 of 2019 of Hubbal li Vidyanagar Police Station (Special Sessions Case No.55 of 2019) for the of fences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 376(n) of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Of fence Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. 2. The facts briefly stated in the petition are that on the complaint filed by the father of the victim girl , the police have registered the case. The al legations are that the accused/petitioner3 Krishna Basappa Walikar has kidnapped his daughter. Earlier the complaint is registered and the said case is registered as Sessions Case No.32 of 2018. But the accused was acquitted. Thereafter, on 17.07.2019 night at about 9.30 p.m. his daughter f led away from the house along with 15 grams of gold and cash of Rs.75,000/-. Prior to the said incident the victim had also gone out of the house for few days, as such the complaint was not filed. The victim girlis a minor. The accused has kidnapped her by taking undue advantage of her mentalimmaturity. On registering the case, the police have taken up the investigation. The accused was arrested on 17.10.2019, since then he is in Judicial Custody. The bail petition filed before the Sessions court was rejected. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the prosecution records available at this stage. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the al legations made in the complaint are false and baseless. There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The accused has not kidnapped the victim girl but she hersel f has f led away from her parents house. As per the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., by the Magistrate, the victim has come out of the house in the presence of her parents and joined the company of accused. There was no forcible intercourse whatsoever. But it was only a consensual sex. The investigation is completed, charge sheet is f iled, as such the custodialinterrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Due to the detention, petitioner is put to great hardship. 5. There was no forcible intercourse whatsoever. But it was only a consensual sex. The investigation is completed, charge sheet is f iled, as such the custodialinterrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Due to the detention, petitioner is put to great hardship. 5. The learned HCGP accepting the factum of filing of the charge sheet, submitted that the accused has induced the minor girl to run away from the house and he had kept her in di fferent places and also committed an of fence punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Child Marriage Act, by marrying the minor girl. In the event of granting bail , the accused is likely to commit similar of fences, as such the petition deserves to be rejected. 6. As could be seen from the complaint averments, the victim girl has fled away from the house on 17.07.2019, whereas the complaint is filed on 04.10.2019. Prior to the filing of complaint, a Sessions case was registered against the accused on the basis of the complaint filed by the father of the minor girl . Thereafter the minor girl f led away with the accused on 17.7.2019. The statement of the victim girl under section 164 of Cr.P.C. is recorded by the Magistrate, wherein the victim girl has stated that she is aged about 17 years as on 24.8.2019. She left the house in the presence of her parents and went along with the accused to his sister's house from there they went to Haveri, Akki-alur and other places and on 26.8.2019, friends of accused performed their marriage and there was a physical contact between them during the said period. Thereafter, on 17.10.2019 the police have arrested them. 7. It is an admitted fact that the victim girlis still a minor. It is pertinent to note that immediately after acquittal of the accused in a Sessions Case, the victim girl has fled away on account of inducement. Despite facing the trial in a Sessions Case, the accused/petitioner has ventured to take away the minor girl and has also married her. Thus, it is evident that the accused has deliberately committed the wrongful acts. 8. The main contention of the learned HCGP for the State is that the past conduct of the accused clearly goes to show that he is not going to comply the bail conditions. Thus, it is evident that the accused has deliberately committed the wrongful acts. 8. The main contention of the learned HCGP for the State is that the past conduct of the accused clearly goes to show that he is not going to comply the bail conditions. In the event of granting bail, he is likely to run away along with the minor girl . 9. General ly while granting bail , the relevant considerations are; (i ) the nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence; and (iii ) circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (iv) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (v) the impact i .e. , on releasing him, impact on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society and likelihood of his tampering. 10. There are no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail. Each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court. 11. In the instant case the minor girl has fled away with the accused 3-4 times and most important aspect to be considered is, even after facing the trialin a Sessions case, the accused has once again fled away with the minor girl, which clearly indicates that the accused is a habitual offender. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner is an under trial, but his liberty is also a relevant consideration. But equally important is to consider the impact of his release on bail, on the prosecution witnesses and also its impact on the society in order to ensure that during the trial the material witnesses depose without fear and justice being done to the society, a balance has to be struck. No doubt the Courts have to undoubtedly adopt a liberal approach while considering the bail applications of the accused persons. However in a given case it is found that there is a possibility of interdicting a fair trial by the accused i f released on bail. The public interest of fair trial would out weigh the personalinterest of the accused while undertaking the tasks of balancing the liberty of the accused on the one hand and the interest of the society to have a fair trial on the other hand. 12. The public interest of fair trial would out weigh the personalinterest of the accused while undertaking the tasks of balancing the liberty of the accused on the one hand and the interest of the society to have a fair trial on the other hand. 12. The importance of fair trial was emphasized in Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra, (2005) 3 SCC 143 : ( AIR 2005 SC 1299 ) whi le setting aside the order of the High Court granting bailin the fol lowing terms: (SCC pp. 147- 48, para 13) (at p. 1302 of AIR) . "13. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions made by the counsel appearing on either side. The object underlying the cancel lation of bail is to protect the fair trial and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in the heinous crime and i f there is delay in such a case the underlying object of cancel lation of bail practically loses allits purpose and signi f icance to the greatest prejudice and the interest of the prosecution. It hardly requires to be stated that once a person is released on bailin serious criminal cases where the punishment is quite stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased victim and also create problems of law and order situation." 13. As already stated above, in the instant case the victim girlis still a minor and the Sessions case is at the stage of f ixing the date for trial . Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there is every possibility of the victim girl and some other witnesses being influenced or tampered with. 14. For the foregoing reasons, there are no valid grounds for granting bail . Accordingly, I pass the fol lowing: ORDER The bail petition is rejected. The petitioner/accused is at liberty to approach the concerned Sessions Court for seeking bail after recording of the evidence of the victim girl and other material witnesses other than the police off icials.