The presumption of innocence until guilt is proven and the completion of the investigation are valid grounds for granting bail in cases involving sexual offences.

JUDGMENT

Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the sole accused seeking bail in Crime No.10/2019 of Kencharla Halli Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4, 6, 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, pending on the file of Additional district and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1 at Chikkaballapura in Spl.S.C. No.16/2020.

2. The prosecution case is that on the complaint filed by the father of the victim the Kencharlahalli police have registered the case at Crime No.10/2019. After completion of the investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 366A, 363, 376 of IPC and Sections 6, 4, 12 and 8 of Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The petitioner is the sole accused. The bail petition filed before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FSTC 1, Chikkaballapura, was rejected.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the charge sheet records.

4. The learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the bail application orally and has filed a memo along with copy of the 164 statement of the victim girl.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner inviting attention to the prosecution records and the 164 statement of the victim submitted that the accused has married the victim girl as there was a love affair between them. There are no specific allegations that the minor girl was kidnapped by him and rape was committed against her wish. Since the charge sheet has already been filed, the presence of petitioner is not required for interrogation. Due to the detention there is no one to look after his wife namely, the victim minor girl.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader while acknowledging the factum on filing the 164 statement submitted that keeping in view of the gravity of the offences alleged to have been committed, the accused does not deserve tobe enlarged on bail. The victim girl was a minor as on the date of the alleged offence. There is ample evidence to show that the accused has committed rape on minor girl. In the event of granting bail he is likely to cause threat to the victim girl and her family members.

7. Having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. The 164 statement furnished by the learned High Court Government Pleader discloses that there was a love affair between the accused and the victim girl. Therefore she eloped with him. Thereafter the accused has married the victim girl and she has also stated in her 164 statement that she would like to lead marital life with the accused petitioner and she is pregnant. The statement of prosecutrix and other witnesses goes to show that the victim has voluntarily gone along with the accused and there are no specific allegations by the victim that the petitioner accused has forcibly had sexual intercourse with her.

8. Having perused the 164 statement of the victim and other charge sheet records this Court is persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim prosecutrix has voluntarily gone along with the accused without there being any coercion or pressure. The fact that the accused has married the victim girl clearly indicates that there was no threat whatsoever to the victim girl.

9. It is well settled principle that till the time the guilt of the person is not proved in accordance with law he is deemed to be innocent. Admittedly, the charge sheet has been filed. No materials are forthcoming to infer that in the event of petitioner being enlarged on bail he may flee away from justice or tamper the prosecution witnesses. Under these circumstances, there are no valid grounds to keep the