The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of evidence related to possession and transmission of obscene material involving children, and the application of legal principles for grant or refusal of bail.

JUDGMENT

a. K. Menon, J. - The applicant seeks to be enlarged on bail in a FIR No.RC-04(S)/2021/CBI/SC/III/ND under Section 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences act ( POCSO act) and under Section 67-B of the Information and Technology act, 2000. Mr. Muley, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted at the outset that the applicant has been in custody since about 9 months and the investigation is complete. The chargesheet has been filed and considering the charges framed there will be no justification in his continued custody.

2. Mr. Muley submitted that the applicant was employed as a Chef in a hotel in Goa since 2013-14 and the complainant apparently receive information that the applicant was allegedly involved with other unknown persons in photographing children engaged in sexual acts and publishing/transmitting sale of obscene material over the internet via the dark web and other social media platforms. Mr. Muley, submits that prior to filing of the chargesheet the complainant's officials along with local police at Nizampur Police Station, Bhiwandi visited the applicant resident at 2.30p.m on 24.6.2021 and informed his father that a case has been registered by the CBI and that the applicant was required for investigation.

3. Initially notice under Section 41a of the Cr.P.C. was issued to the applicant at about 6.00p.m on 24.6.2021 which was received by the father of the applicant. The applicant being directed to appear before the Deputy Superintendent of police, at 6.00p.m on 24.6.2022 at CBI, Camp office, Nariman point Mumbai. The CBI officials apparently asked the father of the applicant to given him some money and clothes when he attends CBI Camp office. The allegation is that no station diary entry was made recording this position including by the local police. On 25.6.2021 at 12.15 p.m the applicant's father and uncle visited the camp office. The applicant was present there and they interacted with him for about 10 minutes duly monitored by CCTV camera. The applicant father was informed that the applicant would be released in some time but he was not so released. Further visits were permitted on 27.6.2021 and 28.6.2021.

4. The CBI members conducted a search in the house of the applicant seized one hard drive, external drive, pen drive and compact disk -sans a search warrant. On 30.6.2021, the applicant's father filed a habeas corpus writ petition in the Bombay High Court but the applicant was then brought to Panaji and shown as arrested here.

5. On 6.7.2021, in his remand application under Sections 4,6,8, 10, 12, 15 of the POCSO act were added in addition to Section 14 and Section 67-B of the Information and Technology act. Remand was initially given for 10 days extended by a further 4 days but the chargesheet levied charges only under Sections 12 and 15 along with Section 67 B of the IT act.

6. The applicant thereafter filed a bail application before the Special Court POCSO act at Panaji seeking to be enlarged on bail. The Special Court rejected the bail application on 26.11.2021. Thereafter the applicant through his advocate applied under Section 207 of CR.P.C for being provided with copies of the complaint, chargesheet, statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.p.C. and all medical examination reports. Mr. Muley makes a grievance that till date of filing the bail application, the accused had not received the documents requested. Mr. Muley, therefore submitted that after 9 months of custody and filing of the chargesheet, there is no reason now for the applicant to be detained in jail. Sections 4,6,8 and 10 were dropped since the chargesheet has pressed charges under Section 12 and 15 along with Section 67 B of the IT act. Even under Section 15, Mr. Muley submitted that there is no case made out that the applicant had utilised any of the material for commercial purposes and hence no case was made out under Section 15(3) either. He also submitted that there is n