JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri Govindraj, learned counsel representing Sri Nehru P., for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 2. The present petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail for the petitioner in Crime No. 203/2021 of Halebeedu Police Station, Hassan District for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: A complaint came to be lodged by the victim girl contending that she is studying in Government PU College in first PUC and her parents are indulged in agriculture. She came in contract with the present petitioner and the contact was subsequently developed into love affair. It is also contended that taking advantage of the love affair, the petitioner committed forcible sexual intercourse with her 3-4 times. Later on, she became pregnant. On enquiry made by her grandmother, she has narrated the incident to her grandmother and therefore, a complaint came to be filed. 4. Police after registering the case, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. At the time of investigation, the accused was arrested on 23.11.2021 and he was sent to judicial custody. 5. The request made by the petitioner to enlarge him on bail was turned down by the order dated 01.02.2022 in Special Case No. 4/2022 by the Special Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Sri Govindraj, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the case of love affair has been glorified by the prosecution and unnecessarily the present accused has been roped in the case and falsely implicated. He also contended that materials on record especially the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., do not warrant further continuation of the accused in custody any longer. He also pointed out that the materials on record would clearly depict that the victim girl is still interested in the petitioner and parents are opposing and a false case has been filed against the petitioner. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition. He also pointed out that the materials on record would clearly depict that the victim girl is still interested in the petitioner and parents are opposing and a false case has been filed against the petitioner. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition. He also pointed out that materials on record especially having regard to Sections 29 and 30 of the Act would sufficiently establish the guilt of the accused and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. 8. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the materials on record. The complaint averments do reveal that the victim girl had a love affair with the petitioner herein. However, since the complainant is aged 16 years, her consent, if any, for sexual intercourse, which she had with the petitioner herein cannot be treated as consent in the eye of law. Whether at all the victim girl became pregnant on account of forcible sexual intercourse had with the petitioner or not cannot be decided by this Court at this stage by holding mini trial. 9. It is settled principles of law that at the time of considering bail petition, this Court cannot hold a mini trial to ascertain the merits or demerits of the case as the same may prejudice the case of the parties during trial on one way or the other. 10. Suffice to say that materials on record is not sufficient enough to admit the petitioner on bail by resorting the special powers vested in the Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this court pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is dismissed. Having regard to the timeline prescribed under the POCSO Act, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible. Ordered accordingly.