1. The applicant is a Post Graduate Doctor. Based on a statement given by his own son, a boy aged 9 years and studying in the V standard, a Crime has been registered against him at the Kannur Town Police Station, under 9(h) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Annexure-A7 is the complaint, which is dated 18.7.2018, allegedly lodged by the minor boy. He states that his father and mother are divorced and are residing separately. Both parents are doctors. While he was studying in the II or III standard, he used to sleep with his father as and when his mother went to attend hospital calls at night. His father used to touch his genitals and tickle him.

3. Appearing for the applicant, Sri.Ramesh Chander, the learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the minor child of the applicant has been coaxed to lodge a complaint against the applicant to seek variation of the order passed by the Family Court granting visitation rights to the applicant. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the applicant herein is a Post Graduate Doctor and is working at the Co-operative Hospital at Payanoor, as a General Physician. There was intense discord in the matrimony and the applicant had divorced his wife as per Annexure-A1 agreement dated 5.8.2017. In Annexure-A1, a provision was incorporated as per which, the custody of the child was retained with the mother. Immediately thereafter, the wife of the applicant filed Annexure-A2 petition under the provisions of the Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 for divorce, which, according to the learned Senior Counsel, was dismissed in view of AnnexureA1. Referring to Annexure-A2, it was contended that even according to his wife, the spouses had resided together only till 15.08.2009. If that be true, the allegation in the complaint that even in the year 2015, the spouses were living together as husband and wife is clearly false. The statement of the child is that he was abused by his own father about 3-4 years back. During that time, the child was with the mother and they were living separately. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the applicant herein had filed a petition seeking custody invoking the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. In the petition, after hearing the parties, the Family Court had passed order dated 23.04.2018 granting visitation rights to the applicant. Several months after the order was passed, to seek variation of that order and to prevent the applicant from having visitation rights, such grave allegations have been levelled against him, is the submission advanced by the learned Senior Counsel.

4. Sri.Amjad Ali, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the prayer and submitted that the investigation is still in the early stages. The victim child, in unequivocal terms have stated that he was sexually assaulted by the applicant. It is further submitted that when a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting to commit an offence under 9 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Special Court is mandated to presume that person has committed or abetted the commission of the offence, unless the contrary is proved. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no reason to doubt the case of the prosecution at this preliminary stage. The allegations cannot be said to be false and frivolous, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The records made available would show that the relationship between the applicant and his wife has ended in divorce. Admittedly from the year 2009, the applicant and his wife has been residing separately. Annexure-A1 would further show that the child has been with the mother all through. It is also seen from Annexure-A6 that an order has been passed by the Family Court granting visitation rights to the applicant on specific dates. Annexure-A5 is the objection to the custody petition, which is dated 23.4.2018 filed by the wife. In the said objection, the