JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No. 46 of 2023, dated 28.10.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 AB of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’). The petitioner was falsely implicated. The investigation is complete, and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner belongs to a respectable family and has deep roots in the society. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim’s mother made a complaint to the police asserting that the victim, aged 3 years, was playing in the room on 27.10.2023 at 8:30 pm. The accused took her with him on the pretext of buying her chocolate. The accused did not return with the victim; hence, the victim’s mother sent her brother to trace the accused and the victim. He found that the accused had taken the victim to a dark alley. The accused could not give any satisfactory reason for taking the victim. The victim revealed that the accused had removed her underwear. When the victim’s mother removed the victim’s underwear, she found that the victim was bleeding from her private parts. The matter was reported to the police. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police arrested the accused. The accused showed the place where he had raped the victim. The police found blood stains on the cement bag and tarpaulin. The police seized the blood-stained portion of the cement bag and tarpaulin. The accused also got recovered three toffee wrappers. The police seized the clothes of the accused. As per the result of the analysis, human blood was detected on the clothes of the victim and the T- shirt of the accused. Blood was also detected on the shirt of the victim, tarpaulin and the lower of the accused. Human semen was detected on the undergarments of the accused. DNA of the victim was found on the lower of the accused. The Medical Officer reported that the sexual assault had taken place; hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Blood was also detected on the shirt of the victim, tarpaulin and the lower of the accused. Human semen was detected on the undergarments of the accused. DNA of the victim was found on the lower of the accused. The Medical Officer reported that the sexual assault had taken place; hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Sarthak Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 4. Mr. Sarthak Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The trial is not progressing satisfactorily and the right of speedy trial has been violated; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the accused is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He had raped a child aged 3 years and this is corroborated by the report of the analysis. The matter is listed for the prosecution evidence on the 17 th , 18 th and 19 th of this month and there is no delay in the progress of the trial; hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2271, wherein it was observed as under: - “ 19. Courts, while granting bail, are required to consider relevant factors such as the nature of the accusation, the role ascribed to the accused concerned, possibilities/chances of tampering with the evidence and/or witnesses, antecedents, flight risk, et al. Speaking through Hima Kohli, J., the present coram in Ajwar v. Waseem, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974 , apropos relevant parameters for granting bail, observed: “ 26. Speaking through Hima Kohli, J., the present coram in Ajwar v. Waseem, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974 , apropos relevant parameters for granting bail, observed: “ 26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. (Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 525 ; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav (supra) (2004) 7 SCC 528; Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 14 SCC 286 ; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496; Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 16 SCC 508; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia (supra) (2020) 2 SCC 118 27. It is equally well settled that bail, once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the Superior Court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a Superior Court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order. In P v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) (2022), 15 SCR 211 decided by a three-judge bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli, J)] has spelt out the considerations that must be weighed with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1) of the CrPC in the following words: “24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [ Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237 ]. To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail, but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court.” (emphasis supplied) 20. In State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1085 , speaking through one of us (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.), the Court, while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting (anticipatory) bail, discussed and reasoned: “ 7. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528 . In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496 , the relevant principles were restated thus: ‘9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering 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 accusation; (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 influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.’ 8. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia (2020) 2 SCC 118 this Court opined as under: ‘16. The considerations that guide the power of an appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for the cancellation of bail. The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil of the existence of supervening circumstances or violations of the conditions of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted. …’ 9. In Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak, 2023 INSC 761 , this Court, in view of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 ; Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh, (1996) 4 SCC 693 and X v. State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511 , held as follows: ‘13. It is also required to be borne in mind that when a prayer is made for the cancellation of the grant of bail, cogent and overwhelming circumstances must be present, and bail, once granted, cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it in conducing to allow fair trial. It is also required to be borne in mind that when a prayer is made for the cancellation of the grant of bail, cogent and overwhelming circumstances must be present, and bail, once granted, cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it in conducing to allow fair trial. This proposition draws support from the Judgment of this Court in Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 , Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh (1996) 4 SCC 693 and XXX v. State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511 .’ 10. In XXX v. Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, 2023 INSC 767 , this Court noted that the principles in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar (supra) stood reiterated in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra (2022) 9 SCC 321 11. The contours of anticipatory bail have been elaborately dealt with by 5-Judge Benches in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 is worthy of mention in this context, despite its partial overruling in Sushila Aggarwal (supra) . We are cognizant that liberty is not to be interfered with easily. More so when an order of pre-arrest bail already stands granted by the High Court. 12. Yet, much like bail, the grant of anticipatory bail is to be exercised with judicial discretion. The factors illustrated by this Court through its pronouncements are illustrative and not exhaustive. Undoubtedly, the fate of each case turns on its own facts and merits.” (emphasis supplied) 8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The status report shows that the private parts of the victim were bleeding. The report of DNA analysis shows that the DNA of the victim was found on the lower of the accused. These circumstances prima facie show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the crime. The victim was aged three years, and the petitioner had raped her. The age of the victim shows the gravity of the offence. 10. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is a delay in the progress of trial and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground. This submission cannot be accepted. The victim was aged three years, and the petitioner had raped her. The age of the victim shows the gravity of the offence. 10. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is a delay in the progress of trial and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground. This submission cannot be accepted. The incident took place on 28.10.2023. The supplementary charge sheet was filed before the Court on 27.02.2024 and as per the submission of Mr Jitender Sharma, the matter is listed for prosecution evidence on the 17 th , 18 th and 19 th of this month. The copies of the order sheets have not been filed to show that there is a delay on the part of the prosecution in conducting the trial; hence, the plea that there is a delay in the progress of the trial cannot be accepted. 11. The status report shows that the victim was aged 03 years. She is yet to be examined. The status report shows that the accused and the family of the victim were known to each other. Therefore, there is a reasonable apprehension that the accused will influence the victim. Keeping in view this circumstance, the petitioner cannot be released on bail at this stage. 12. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 13. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.