JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Petition, under Ss. 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking regular bail in Cr.No.823/2023 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. 2. The above crime was registered against the Petitioner ffor or the offence punishable under Ss. 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec. 6 of POCSO Act 2012, Sec. 3(2)(v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act. 3. The Prosecution's case, in brief, is that prior to 6/11/2023, the Accused is an auto driver and he is a resident of Kondapa Kondapally lly Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal. He developed an acquaintance with the Victim, who is a minor girl, aged about 16 years belongs to Schedule Caste. While dropped her at school and later with his deceitful words, induced her and committed penetrative sexual assault against her, as a result, she became pregnant. Based on the complaint of the Victim's mother, the crime has been registered against the Petitioner for the above-said offences. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is innocent; he was eking out his life as an Auto driver; he has been in judicial custody since 9/11/2023; the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed and prays to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation was completed and a charge sheet was filed but opposed granting bail by stating that if the Petitioner is released on bail, he will threaten the witnesses. 6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the Petition as well as in the report. Consequently, the contentions raised by learned counsel need not be reproduced. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as the investigation is completed, the release of Petitioner/Accused would not affect the Prosecution's case; in fact, both the Victim and the Accused were living together and this fact is also known to the Victim's mother and she never raised any objection and now, the Victim's mother raised this issue because of the peer pressure of her community leaders. 8. As seen from the record, the Defacto complainant/Victim is a minor girl of 16 years of age. 8. As seen from the record, the Defacto complainant/Victim is a minor girl of 16 years of age. According to the Prosecution, it is a case of aggravated penetrative sexual assault and sexual exploitation committed on the victim girl, while she was studying 10th class, the Accused developed an acquaintance with her while dropping her at school. 9. In Dharmander Singh @ Saheb V. The State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi), 2020 0 Supreme(Del) 1033, the High Court of Delhi observed some parameters to deal with the bail applications pertaining to the POCSO offences. The court emphasized the significance of the age difference between the victim and the accused, noting that a greater age gap may indicate a higher degree of perversion in the alleged offence. 10. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and reasons for grant of bail in cases involving serious offences should be given. [See Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 ; Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta V. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2012) 4 SCC 134 , para 32; Vinod Bhandari V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 15 SCC 389, para13; and Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit V. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458 , para 29)] 11. At the time of assigning reasons in order to grant/refuse bail, there should not be discussion of merits and demerits of the evidence. [See State of Bihar V. Rajballav Prasad @ Rajballav Prasad Yadav @ Rajballabh Yadav, (2017) 2 SCC 178 , para 15] 12. In support of the Prosecution's case, Prosecution has recorded the statement of material witnesses and the material placed supports the Prosecution's case. DNA report also prima facie falsifies the Petitioner's contention. DNA report shows that Petitioner is the biological father of the male child of Victim Girl. There is evidence on record connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence under Sec. 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act 2012, Sec. 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Act. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court from the material on record or otherwise, causing the Victim to implicate the Petitioner falsely in the present case. 13. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court from the material on record or otherwise, causing the Victim to implicate the Petitioner falsely in the present case. 13. Indeed, pre-trial imprisonment cannot be used as a substitute for the punishment without the scrutiny of the evidence by the trial Court, but, at the same time, in a case where a girl was in such a situation, as referred to above, grant of bail to the Petitioner, at this stage, may also have an adverse impact on the society. Sec. 29 of the POCSO Act reads as follows: 29. Presumption as to certain offences. - Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Sec. 3, 5, 7 and Sec. 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved." Thus, the provision of reverse onus under Sec. 29 of the POCSO Act has also to be given due weightage. Balance has to be maintained between personal and societal interests. 14. It is not necessary now to go into detail about the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against the Accused as this is a subject matter to be dealt with by the trial Judge. Where prima facie involvement of the Accused is apparent, the contentions raised regarding the contradictions in the charge sheet are required to be tested at the time of trial, but not at this stage. The period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the Petitioner/Accused to be enlarged on bail. Filing of the charge sheet establishes that after due investigation, the investigation agency, having found materials, has placed the charge sheet for the trial of the Petitioner. 15. Given above, considering the cumulative effect of entire facts and circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of the evidence and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and other factors, like the nature of the offence, the manner, in which it has been committed and its impact on the society, Petitioner is not entitled to bail, at this stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 16. As a result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.