JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.37/2020 of Dharwad Women Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 354(A) of IPC and under Section 8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012(for short POCSO Act ). 2. The case of the prosecution is that victim girl has filed a complaint on 06.07.2020 alleging that on 29.06.2020 when the victim was at home with her mother and grandmother went out of the house for nature call, when the victim girl was sleeping at home, the petitioner having entered the house caught-hold of her mouth tightly and touched her body parts with sexual intent. The victim girl somehow rescued herself from the petitioner and when she shouted the petitioner ran away who being none other than her neighbor. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.37/2020 of Dharwad Women Police for the offence punishable under Section 354(A)of IPC and under Section 8 of POCSO Act 2012 against this petitioner. Petitioner was arrested on 25.07.2020. Petitioner has filed bail petitioner before the II Addl. District and Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad and the same came to be rejected by order dated 18.08.2020. Hence, petitioneraccused is before this Court seeking bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned HCGP for respondent-State. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that incident has taken place on 30.06.2020 at about 2 p.m. and complaint came to be filed on 07.07.2020 at about 7.45 p.m. There is a delay in filing the complaint. It is his further submission that the offence alleged is under Section 354(A) punishment provided for the said offence is imprisonment up to three years and for the offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act imprisonment is not less than three years and it may extend to 5 years. It is his further submission that offences alleged against petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is his further submission that major portion of the investigation is over and therefore petitioner is no more required for custodial interrogation. With this he prays to allow the petition. 5. It is his further submission that offences alleged against petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is his further submission that major portion of the investigation is over and therefore petitioner is no more required for custodial interrogation. With this he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that the petitioner has sexually assaulted the victim girl who is aged 14 years when she was alone in the house when she was sleeping at 2.00 a.m. and when her mother and grand mother went out for attending nature call. It is her further submission that investigation is still in progress and if the petitioner- accused is granted with bail he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and he may flee from justice. With these, she prays to reject the bail petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the FIR and complaint. The incident has taken place on 30.06.2020 at 2.00 p.m. and the complaint came to be filed on 07.07.2020 at about 7.45 hours and there is a delay in filing the complaint. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 354(A) and punishment for the said offence is imprisonment up to three years and for the offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act, imprisonment is not less than 3 years and it may extend up to 5 years. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 7. 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. 8. In a decision in the case of DATARAM SINGH Vs. 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. 9. In the present case the investigation is in progress. No grounds have been made out by the prosecution to show that custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is necessary. The petitioner-accused is residing in the address shown in cause title is not in dispute. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner-accused. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of grant of bail, the accused is likely to cause threat to the complainant and prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing some stringent conditions. 10. In the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that there are valid grounds for grant of bail subject to conditions. Hence, I pass the following. ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The said objection may be set right by imposing some stringent conditions. 10. In the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that there are valid grounds for grant of bail subject to conditions. Hence, I pass the following. ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Crime No.37/2020 of Dharwad Women Police Station, subject to the following conditions. i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. In view of the Covid-2019 petitioner is permitted to furnish surety within two months. If circumstances arise, jurisdictional court is permitted to extend the time for furnishing surety. ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses in any manner. iii) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case registered against him. iv) The petitioner shall mark his attendance in jurisdictional Police Station between 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. for a period of three months or till filing of final report whichever is earlier.