JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.202/2019 of Kurugod Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(3) and 506 of IPC and under Section 9 of Child Marriage Restraint Act and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short "POCSO" ). 2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Basavaraj the father of the victim girl has filed complaint stating that her daughter is aged 16 years and 6 months and she used to go to Shrinivas Camp for plucking Anjur fruits and the petitioner is running an auto who used to pickup his daughter to work and drop her back. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioner has been teasing victim girl for which he was advised. About 11 months back he came to know that his daughter is pregnant and on asking she said that the petitioner has been loving her and likes her and will marry her and about 7 months back he has taken her to Sangameshwara Temple at Kurugod and has married her and afterwards has made her pregnant and has threatened her not to reveal the same to her parents and subsequently she has delivered a female baby which is two months at the time of filing complaint. On 25.11.2019, the complainant and his wife went to the petitioner and asked him to take victim girl to his house and he said to have denied the same, also saying that the child is not born to him and refused to take their daughter (victim girl) to his house. Petitioner knowing that their daughter is a minor has loved her and has married her and made her pregnant. The said complaint came to registered in Crime No. 202/2019 of Kurugod Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 363, 376A, 494, 506 of IPC and Section 9 and 11 of Child Marriage Restrain act and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of POCSO Act. The petitioner came to be arrested on 16.02.2020. The bail petition filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 came to be rejected by trial Court. Therefore, the petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and learned HCGP for respondent-State. 4. The petitioner came to be arrested on 16.02.2020. The bail petition filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 came to be rejected by trial Court. Therefore, the petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and learned HCGP for respondent-State. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 that victim girl is aged about 17 years and the petitioner married her and she become pregnant. It is his further submission that there is a love affair between the petitioner and the victim girl. It is his further submission that the petitioner is aged 21 years and if he is detained in judicial custody, he comes in contact with hardened criminals. It is his further submission that victim girl is aged 17 years. As on the date of offence, she is of the age of understanding the consequences of her acts. It is his further submission that investigation is over, charge sheet has been filed and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is not necessary and petitioneraccused is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. With this he prayed to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP contended that victim girl is aged 16 years and 6 months as on the date of offence. It is her further submission that petitioner had sexual intercourse with victim girl and made her pregnant and thereafter he married her even though he know that she is minor. It is her further submission that after the marriage of the petitioner with the victim girl, he could not married another girl. The petitioner even after marrying this victim girl has married CW.10-Mahadevi alias Lakshmi. It is her further submission that charge sheet material prima facie show that the offences alleged against the petitioner-accused No.1. It is her further submission that if he is granted with bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, she prays to reject the bail petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned HCGP, this Court has gone through charge sheet records. On perusal of the statement of the victim girl, she had a love affair with the petitioner-accused No.1 and thereafter petitioner-accused married her when she became pregnant and kept her in a separate house. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned HCGP, this Court has gone through charge sheet records. On perusal of the statement of the victim girl, she had a love affair with the petitioner-accused No.1 and thereafter petitioner-accused married her when she became pregnant and kept her in a separate house. Thereafter, she delivered a female baby. Victim girl is aged 16 years 6 months as on the date of offence and she is of the age of understanding the consequences of her acts. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner-accused No.1. 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. 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 completed. Charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner is aged 21 years and there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner-accused. If the petitioner-accused is detained in prison, he will come in contact with the hardened criminals. The petitioner-accused is residing in the address shown in the cause title and it is not disputed. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of grant of bail, the petitioner-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 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 No.1 shall be released on bail in Crime No.202/2019 of Kurugod 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 Covid-19, the 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 appear before the Court regularly and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.