JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the accused under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C. , for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.85/2019 of Dandeli Town Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 363, 366, 376, 504 and 506 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC , for brevity), Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the SC & ST Act , for brevity) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act , for brevity). 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim has filed the complaint on 03.10.2019 stating that she is residing along with her mother and younger sister at Dandeli and her mother is working as peon and her sister is studying in 10th standard and that she has failed in PUC examination and she is preparing for supplementary exam and she is 17 years old. She has further alleged that the accused was acquainted to her as he is a distant relative and he used to come to her house now and then and he has stated that he loves her and he will marry her. It is further alleged that on one day, the petitioner came to the house of the complainant/victim and informed that her mother had met with an accident and took her on motorcycle and both of them went near old forest Dandeli depot and accused pushed her on the ground and removed her veil and tied her both legs and hands with a rope and committed sexual assault on her. The petitioner threatened her not to inform to her parents and forcibly took her to his friends house and stayed there and he again committed sexual assault on her. It is further alleged that thereafter, the petitioner took her to Khanapur, Belagavi and Sankeshwar on his motorcycle and thereafter took her to Bommanagi village and stayed in the house of a person by name Ramesh and she has informed the said incident to one person by name Anil Jyothiba over phone and he came there and took her to her house. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered in Dandeli Town Police Crime No.85/2019 for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner came to be arrested on 05/10/2019. Charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 323, 363, 366, 376, 504 and 506 of IPC. The bail application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge FTSC-I, Uttara Kannada, Karwar. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the incident has taken place on 18.09.2019 and the complaint came to be filed on 03.10.2019 and there is a delay in filing the complaint. It is his further contention that accused took the victim girl to different places on his motorcycle i.e., Khanapur, Belagavi, Sankeshwar and Bommanagi village, the victim did not raise hue and cry and the very said act of the victim goes to show that there is love affair between the petitioner and the victim and she has voluntarily went along with him. It is his further submission that the victim has filed a complaint at the instance of her parent. It is his further submission that the age of the victim is 17 years 3 months as on the date of the offence and she was knowing the consequences of her act. It is his further submission that the accused intends to marry the victim and parent of the victim is not ready and therefore a false complaint has been registered against him. It is his further submission that the Doctor, who examined the victim, has stated that there are no external injuries and there is no evidence of recent sexual assault. It is his further submission that charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is no more required for custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the victim was aged 17 years as on the date of the offence. The medical certificate shows that hymen is absent. It is his further submission that charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is no more required for custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the victim was aged 17 years as on the date of the offence. The medical certificate shows that hymen is absent. The victim has specifically stated the acts of the petitioner regarding sexual assault on her and also taking her to different places in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. It is her further submission that charge sheet has been filed and there is prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences alleged. It is her further submission that, if, the petitioner is granted bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, she prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. 7. Even according to the averments of the complaint, the petitioner is a relative of the victim and the petitioner had proposed the victim stating that he is loving her. The petitioner took the victim between 18.09.2019 to 22.09.2019 to different places i.e., Khanapur, Belagavi, Sankeshwar etc on his motorcycle and the victim has not raised any hue and cry and did not try to escape from the clutches of the petitioner. The very said aspect goes to show that the victim has voluntarily went along with the petitioner and there is a love affair between them. The victim is aged more than 17 years and she is of the age of understanding the consequences of her act. The Doctor, who conducted medical examination of the victim, has stated that there are no external injuries and there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. 8. The victim is aged more than 17 years and she is of the age of understanding the consequences of her act. The Doctor, who conducted medical examination of the victim, has stated that there are no external injuries and there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. 8. It is well settled that matters to be considered in an application for bail are: (i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses, may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. 9. In a decision in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of Uttara Pradesh and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Hon ble Apex Court held as under: A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 10. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 10. In the present case, investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. No grounds have been made out by the prosecution to show that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. The petitioner is aged 23 years and if he is detained in prison, he will come in contact with hardened criminals and there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The petitioner is the resident of the address shown in the cause title and the same is not disputed. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioner is likely to cause threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in Crime No.85/2019 of Dandeli Town Police Station subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. Due to COVID-19, the petitioner is permitted to furnish surety within two months. If circumstances arise, the jurisdictional Court is permitted to extend the period for furnishing surety. ii ) The petitioner/accused shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. iii) The petitioner/accused shall attend the Court regularly and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.