JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner/accused No.1 in Criminal Misc. No.1872/2019 (arising out of Crime No.60/2019, of Wadi Police Station), pending before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi, has filed this petition seeking his enlargement on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as Cr.P.C.), for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(n), 109 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as IPC) and under Sections 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'POCSO Act') and Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. 2. The charge sheet accuses the present petitioner that, enticing the victim who was minor in her age (16 years), the petitioner (the accused No.1) who was already a married person, eloped with her and took her to different places including Mysuru and subjected her to repetitive penetrative sexual assault on different dates till the Police traced them and brought them back to the place where the victim was residing. 3. Accused No.2 is said to have joined her husband, who is accused No.1 and abetted in committing the alleged crime. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that, the only material witness is the alleged victim girl, who, in her evidence in the Special Court below, has clearly stated that, she does not know who the accused are and the alleged incident has not taken place. In that background, the petitioner deserves his enlargement on bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, who has filed his Statement of Objections, submitted that, admittedly, the victim girl was minor in her age as on the date of the alleged incident. The complainant in the case is none else than the mother of the victim girl. Both the complainant and the brother of the victim girl who was an eye witness for the offence of the accused kidnapping his sister have supported the case of the prosecution as PWs.2 and 3 in the Court below. He also submits that the trial is in progress and not less than fourteen witnesses have been examined. The Doctor who has examined the girl is yet to be examined and so also the police witnesses. He also submits that the trial is in progress and not less than fourteen witnesses have been examined. The Doctor who has examined the girl is yet to be examined and so also the police witnesses. In that background, when a prima facie case is made out by the prosecution, the accused does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a certified copy of the charge sheet. A perusal of the petition and the charge sheet papers, at this stage, prima facie, would go to show that, the complainant in the instant case is the mother of the alleged victim girl. She has been examined as PW-2 in the Court below, where the trial in the matter has already begun. According to the prosecution, the said complainant has supported the case of the prosecution clearly stating that, her daughter who was minor in age was kidnapped by the accused on the pretext of marrying her. She has also stated that, as revealed to her by none else than her minor daughter, accused No.1 who is the present petitioner herein, has subjected her to repeated sexual assault. Thus, the complainant is stated to have supported the case of the prosecution. 7. PW-3 Mounesha who is said to be the brother of the victim girl also stated to have supported the case of the prosecution. He is shown to have stated that he was an eye witness for the alleged kidnapping of his sister, i.e. victim girl by the accused on a motor cycle from their village to a different place. 8. A perusal of the charge sheet papers would go to show that, in the Medical Certificate said to have been issued by the Doctor who examined the victim girl, the history which is said to have been given by none else than the alleged victim girl, is recorded as below:- 'History: as given by girl: h/o. eloping with Manju S/o. Sabanna R/o. Ladlapur. She knows the boy from 3 months had met during Jatra/fest at Ladlapur. She knows the boy from 3 months had met during Jatra/fest at Ladlapur. She was taken on bike by him, stayed for 1 night on way, h/o 1 episode of sexual contact: consent, later taken to friends home at Mysore, stayed for 4-5 days, married to Manju at Hanuman temple in presence of his 1st wife, h/o multiple episodes: with consent sexual act, last episode 3 days back, No h/o use of condom, h/o pr bleeding, h/o changing clothes and taking bath after act. After complaint by parents was brought back on 16-07-2019 @ 2:30 p.m. by Police.' The said Doctor has also observed in the medical examination of the girl that, the hymen was torn and was already healed. According to Dentist, the age of the girl was between 15 and 16 years. The School records produced along with the charge sheet appears to be showing that the girl was minor as on the date of the alleged incident. Even the victim girl is said to have stated in her evidence as PW-1 that she was aged about only 16 years as on the date of her evidence. In the said circumstance, when the trial is still going on and some of the prosecution witnesses including the complainant and the brother of the alleged victim girl are said to have supported the case of the prosecution and the medical evidence of the Doctor is yet to be recorded, I am of the view that considering the heinous nature of the offence, the accused/petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present criminal petition is dismissed.