ORDER : This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.193/2019 registered by Girinagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the father of the victim girl – Monisha, aged about 16 years studying in Bharath Matha Women’s College in 1st PUC, lodged a complaint on 29.11.2019 alleging that as usual, she used to go to college and return. That on 28.11.2019 she went to college at about 8.00 a.m. and she did not return. Thereafter, he made enquiries with her friends, she did not attend the college and also she did not return to home. Hence, he has lodged the missing complaint and the same is registered in Crime No.193/2019. The case is registered for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. Thereafter, investigation was conducted and victim was traced along with this petitioner and in the Crime No.193/2019 added the other offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC and Sections 5(l) and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed any offences as alleged in the charge sheet. The age of the victim is 16 years and the police in the charge sheet made an allegation that she is a minor and there is no documentary proof with regard to her date of birth. It is further contended that there is no external injuries to the victim and it clearly indicates that the sexual act is not against her will. The petitioner and the victim both fell in love and the complaint averment does not disclose any ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., there is no averment that sexual act was against her will. Hence, in view of completion of the investigation and charge sheet already been filed, there is no need to have the custodial trial. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. Hence, in view of completion of the investigation and charge sheet already been filed, there is no need to have the custodial trial. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would contend that the victim is aged about 16 years, two months and medical records discloses that she was subjected to sexual act and the doctor has opined in the report that she was subjected to sexual act recently. Even if the victim has given the consent, the same does not amount to a consent at all since, she is a minor. Learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that under Section 2(d) of POCSO Act, it is specific that below age of 18 is a minor and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. The learned High Court Government Pleader also relied upon the order passed in Crl.P.No.20122/2016 dated 13.02.2017 and referring this judgment, the learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that, it does not amount to a consent. Whether it is a consensual sexual act or against the wish of the victim, has to be tested during trial and this Court has specifically mentioned that when the minor girl was subjected to sexual act, the benefit cannot be extended in favour of the petitioner and prays this Court to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, this Court has to examine whether it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 7. Having considered the material available on record, it is clear that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. The records disclose that the victim girl is aged about 16 years and 2 months. In the complaint, a specific allegation is made against this petitioner that he subjected the victim girl to sexual act. The statement of the victim says that she was subjected to sexual act with force. It also discloses that both of them went to Tirunelli and thereafter, they were apprehended. 8. In the complaint, a specific allegation is made against this petitioner that he subjected the victim girl to sexual act. The statement of the victim says that she was subjected to sexual act with force. It also discloses that both of them went to Tirunelli and thereafter, they were apprehended. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the 164 statement made by the victim before the learned Magistrate and would contend that she went to the house of the accused and she says, she was subjected to sexual act twice, but there is no mention of the said sexual act against her wish. 9. This Court would like to refer the judgment of Apex Court reported in (2017) 15 SCC 133 in the case of Eera vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, discussed with regard to the protection of children from sexual offences Act, 2012. The Apex Court also discussed with regard to Section 2(1)(d) i.e., definition of child under the concept of mental age held cannot be read in by the Court. Literal/legislative intent rule of interpretation vis-a-vis purposive or object of legislation, rule of interpretation has to be taken note of and the same is elucidated. The Apex Court also discussed with regard to the preamble of statement of objects and reasons and object of the Act and also discussed with regard to while considering the petition interpreting the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act, child means any child below 18 years of age. 10. This Court also would like to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2017) 1 SCC (CRL) 678 in the case of State of Bihar vsRajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav. The Apex Court in this judgment also held regarding grant of bail and exercise of discretion, what are the relevant considerations and further held that general presumption of innocence of accused not applicable to cases where there is contrary statutory presumptions of his guilt such as when prosecuted under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of POCSO Act, 2012. It is further observed that prime consideration is fair trial for which witnesses must feel protected for free, frank and fearless deposition. It is further observed that prime consideration is fair trial for which witnesses must feel protected for free, frank and fearless deposition. The Court should adopt a liberal approach and properly balance individual liberty and possibility of accused interdicting fair trial if released on bail, which is a social or public interest and further held that the social interest should outweigh personal interest. 11. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments of the Apex Court and also considering the very object and wisdom of the legislature, this Court has to consider the case on hand. On perusal of facts of the case, it is evident that the victim girl is aged about 16 years, 2 months and when the very object of bringing enactment i.e., special enactment of POCSO Act has to be considered. The earlier experience was also taken note of and the offence under Section 375 is also amended with regard to the consent is concerned and amended the same in the year 2013 and the same came into effect from 03.02.2013 and now the age is 18 and earlier it was 16. When such being the case, if the victim is subjected to sexual act, below the age of 16 years and also 12 years, higher punishment is provided. In the case on hand also, though she was aged about 16 years, 2 months, the contention of consent does not arise. The petitioner also did not dispute the fact that she was not subjected to sexual act. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the 164 statement, she has not made any statement with regard to the aggravated sexual act with force. 12. On perusal of the complaint, there is an allegation that he had sexual act with force and the medical evidence placed before the Court also discloses that she was subjected to sexual act and there was a sign of recent sexual intercourse present. When such being the case, in keeping the very object of the special enactment and also the age below the age of 18 years, if any sexual act, even if it is consented, it does not amount to a consent. When such being the case, in keeping the very object of the special enactment and also the age below the age of 18 years, if any sexual act, even if it is consented, it does not amount to a consent. There is a prima facie material before the Court that she was subjected to sexual act and the very contention that she eloped with him or she has consented, cannot be considered at this juncture and the same is a matter of trial and the same has to be tested in trial. Apart from that there is a presumption as to certain offences under the special enactment under Sections 29 and 30 of the Act with regard to committing an offence and having culpable mental state. 13. Keeping in view the principles laid down in the judgments of the Apex Court as well as the very object and wisdom of the legislation, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail, when he has subjected the victim aged about 16 years, 2 months to sexual act. 14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following : ORDER The criminal petition is rejected.