JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has filed the petition seeking to enlarge him on bail with respect to his detention in connection with Spl.C.C.No.24/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act for brevity).

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the first informant who is the father of the child has lodged a complaint stating that his child plays in the apartment lobby usually between 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. It is further stated that his daughter was reluctant to play and upon further enquiry, they have come across the incidents leading to child feeling uncomfortable due to inappropriate behavior of the petitioner. It is stated further that on 25.11.2018, the child did not want to go down to play in the common area, as the presence of the petitioner was bothering her. It is also stated that on subsequent enquiry, the child has told her parents that the petitioner was making her very uncomfortable as he was chasing and touching her inappropriately. There are other such allegations that are made out in the complaint. After complaint has been registered, investigation has been completed, but the trial is yet to commence.

3. Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Mahesh.S for the petitioner points out that there is serious infirmity in the investigation process. It is contended that admittedly, witnesses have not been examined in presence of the parents as required under Section 26 of the POCSO Act and that there was no medical examination as there has been refusal to subject the child to medical examination and hence, there was violation of the requirement of Section 27 of the POCSO Act and it is further stated that the mandate of the law for recording of the evidence in light of the Section 35 of the POCSO has also not been adhered to. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no presumption of having committed the offence as the offences are under Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act and the presumption is with respect to other offences as stipulated under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.

4. Learned HCGP opposes grant of bail and states that prima facie case is made out regarding commission of offences.

5. Learned Sessions Judge had rejected the application of bail by its order dated 11.02.2019 by observing that prima facie case is made out and the petitioner allegedly has taken advantage of the situation by harassing the minor girl sexually.

6. Learned Sessions Judge has observed that the entertainment of bail application would defeat the very object of the POCSO Act and had rejected the application.

7. It would not be appropriate to go into the merits of the case at this stage, including the contention regarding faulty investigation, as any opinion expressed would prejudice the trial.

8. Taking note of the fact that the charge sheet is filed, the primary apprehension regarding prejudice to the trial by the very presence of the petitioner in the same apartment complex where the complainant and the child resides is a matter to be addressed by imposing necessary conditions.

9. Taking note of the punishment prescribed for the offences under Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, it would be appropriate to grant bail till the conclusion of the evidence of material witnesses. It is also to be noted that bail proceedings cannot be construed to be the proceedings for punishment.

10. Accordingly, petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate for expeditious disposal of the case.

(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner.

(iv) The petitioner shall not enter the apartment complex till the evidence of the prime witnesses CWs.2, 3, 4 and 5 are completed.

11. Taking note of the mandatory requi