ORDER : This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.135/2021 of Buntwala Rural Police Station, Buntwala Sub-Division, Dakshina Kannada, for the offence punishable under Sections 376-D and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 5(G) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri Vivek Reddy for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1-State. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that this petitioner and also another accused person subjected the minor girl, who is aged about 16 years for sexual act as against her wish and also caused life threat not to disclose the same to anybody else and continuously subjected her for sexual act for five months by threatening her. Hence, the police have registered the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. 4. After filing of the charge-sheet, this petitioner, who has been arraigned as accused No.2 had approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.1600/2022 and this Court, vide order dated 31.05.2022, considered the matter on merits and in Para Nos.7 and 8, comes to the conclusion that the material on record discloses that the victim was subjected to sexual act and also in 164 statement, the victim girl narrated the same and the fact that she is aged about 16 years is not in dispute. The contention was also raised that other accused also subjected the victim for sexual act and taking note of the said submission, this Court arrived at the conclusion that, even assuming that victim was subjected to sexual act by different persons, the girl below the age of 16 years is not vulnerable, even considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court also taken note of 164 statement of the victim and medical evidence in Para No.8 and comes to the conclusion that it is a heinous offence by this petitioner as well as another accused person by subjecting the girl for sexual act one after the other and continuously subjected her for sexual act for five months. 5. After dismissal of this petition, once again, both the accused Nos.1 and 2 have approached the Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTSC-II (POCSO), D.K., Mangaluru in Spl. 5. After dismissal of this petition, once again, both the accused Nos.1 and 2 have approached the Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTSC-II (POCSO), D.K., Mangaluru in Spl. Case No.1/2022 and the Court rejected the bail application vide order dated 22.08.2022. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 6. The main contention of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, only bald allegations are made against this petitioner and the victim was also examined as P.W.1 before the Trial Court and her evidence is very clear that she has lodged several complaint against different persons and hence, the victim cannot be considered as an innocent. It is also his submission that the evidence of the victim has already been completed and the medical reports are also filed and other witnesses, who have been examined as P.Ws.2 to 5 have not supported the case of the prosecution. 7. The counsel has also filed a memo along with certain documents before this Court i.e., copies of FIR in Crime No.31/2022, 164 statement, complaint and charge-sheet. The counsel also relied upon the depositions of special case arising in Crime No.31/2022, copy of FIR in Crime No.133/2021, copy of the complaint, copy of 164 statement, copy of the charge-sheet and copy of the depositions in special case arising in Crime No.133/2021. 8. The counsel, relying upon these documents would vehemently contend that the victim is having the habit of filing the complaints one after the other and the Court has to look into the conduct of the victim in filing the complaint against different persons making similar allegations. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that, Crime No.11/2022 was registered and in that complaint, she says that, when she went to book a ticket to go to Hariyana, she went along with accused persons and stayed for a period of 2 days and she was brought back and when she was making an effort to go to Hariyana again, she was suspected in the railway station and was sent to remand home and copy of the complaint also discloses the very conduct of the victim. 9. 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1-State would submit that the victim is examined before the Trial Court and she has supported the case of the prosecution and narrated the incident as to how this petitioner and other accused person subjected her for sexual act one after the other calling upon her to school premises and threatened her life and repeatedly subjected her for sexual act for a period of five months under threat. This Court has already taken note of the material available on record and rejected the bail petition and there is no any changed circumstances and the only changed circumstance narrated by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that she has given one more complaint in Crime No.11/2022 that when she was alone, the accused persons in the said crime took her to Karwar and in that case also, investigation has been completed and charge-sheet was filed. Hence, no grounds are made out to enlarge the petitioner on bail in a successive bail petition and the victim is not vulnerable for sexual act even taking note of her conduct. Hence, prayed this Court to reject the bail petition. 10. Having heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1-State, this Court rejected the bail petition on 31.05.2022 in Crl. P. No.1600/2022 after filing of the charge-sheet and reasons are assigned in Para Nos.7 and 8 and similar argument was made in the earlier petition that victim had made an allegation against one more accused that she was subjected to sexual act. This Court having taken note of the said arguments, in Para No.7 held that, even assuming that victim was subjected to sexual act by different persons, the girl below the age of 16 years is not vulnerable to sexual act. Now also, similar attempt is made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that one more case is registered in Crime No.11/2022 and to that effect, he has also produced the statement of the victim, copy of the complaint as well as the charge-sheet. Now also, similar attempt is made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that one more case is registered in Crime No.11/2022 and to that effect, he has also produced the statement of the victim, copy of the complaint as well as the charge-sheet. But, the fact is that, the victim is aged about 16 years and when she was pursuing her education in PUC, this petitioner and other accused person called her near the school and subjected her for sexual act one after the other and threatened her that not to disclose the same to anybody and continuously had sexual intercourse for a period of five months under threat. When the victim complained about stomach pain with her mother, she was taken to the hospital and then, she revealed the act of this petitioner and other accused person. No doubt, the victim made an allegation against other accused person by name Mr. Rizwan, the police have also investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet in the said crime and subsequently, in the month of April, 2022 also, one more case is registered against other accused persons, wherein she has made the complaint that when she was alone in the railway station to book a ticket to go to Hariyana, at that time, the accused persons in Crime No.11/2022 took her saying that they would get the ticket at Karwar and subjected her for sexual act and she has also explained under what circumstance, she was taken to Karwar and mere filing of cases against other accused persons is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the Court has to look into the facts of each case and in each case, the allegation is made that she was subjected to sexual act when she was a minor. Apart from that, filing of cases against different persons is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail and even assuming that the character of the victim is not good, she is not vulnerable to sexual act by any person. 11. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF PUNJAB VS. Apart from that, filing of cases against different persons is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail and even assuming that the character of the victim is not good, she is not vulnerable to sexual act by any person. 11. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF PUNJAB VS. GURMIT SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 , wherein in an offence under Section 376 of IPC, the Apex Court held that where there is some acceptable material on record to show that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse, no such inference like the victim being a girl of “loose moral character” is permissible to be drawn from that circumstance alone. Even if the prosecutrix, in a given case, has been promiscuous in her sexual behaviour earlier, she has a right to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse to anyone and everyone because she is not a vulnerable object or prey for being sexually assaulted by anyone and everyone. No stigma, like the one as cast in the present case should be cast against such a witness by the Courts, for after all it is the accused and not the victim of sex crime who is on trial in the Court. 12. It is also important to note that, in the case on hand, the victim was examined as P.W.1. On perusal of the depositions which is placed before the Court, she has narrated the incident and supported the case of the prosecution and the fact that the witnesses, who have been examined as P.Ws.2 to 5 have not supported the case of the prosecution cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the Court has to take note of the heinous offence committed by the petitioner subjecting the victim girl, who is a minor to sexual act and even in a case of Section 376 of IPC, the very evidence of prosecutrix alone is enough to convict the accused person. 13. In this regard, this Court would like to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in MUKESH AND ANOTHER VS. 13. In this regard, this Court would like to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in MUKESH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 2 SCC (CRI) 673, wherein the Apex Court with regard to evidentiary value of sole testimony of prosecutrix and also the manner of appreciation of evidence held that, conviction can be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix and there is no rule that testimony of prosecutrix cannot be acted upon without corroboration and such corroboration is not a rule of law but a requirement of prudence and testimony of prosecutrix stands on a higher pedestal than injured witness. Hence, the very contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that other witnesses i.e., P.Ws.2 to 5 have not supported the case of the prosecution cannot be a ground to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner since, the victim has supported the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court when she was examined. 14. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that Court has to take note of the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5. Admittedly, the victim was a minor and heinous offence of sexual act was committed by this petitioner along with other accused person on the victim continuously for a period of five months causing threat to the victim. Hence, I do not find any merit in the successive bail petition to enlarge the petitioner on bail and mere registration of one more case at the instance of victim against other accused person is not a changed circumstance to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner in a successive bail petition. 15. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The bail petition is rejected.