IMPORTANT POINTS :
• An application preferred under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. involving serious offences under Act 32 of 2012, the need for ascribing reasons and the powers of the Superior Court to cancel the same on the grounds of perversity and manifest illegality.
• Distinction between the parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail. There is also a distinction between the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order and cancellation of an order of bail on the ground that the accused has mis-conducted himself or due to the happening of certain supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation- If the order granting bail is a perverse one or passed on irrelevant materials, it can be annulled by the superior court.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been preferred by the State assailing the order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge For the Trial of Cases relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence Towards Women and Children, Kozhikode. By the said order, the respondent herein, who was arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No.724 of 2018 of the Kunnamangalam Police Station was granted an order of anticipatory bail. What is of some relevance is that in the said crime, the respondent was accused of having committed offence punishable under Section 3(c) r/w. Sections 4 and 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act, 2012” for the sake of brevity), for abusing a minor boy aged 13 years.

2. Before adverting to the relevant facts of this case, it needs to be mentioned that the instant crime is one in a series of three crimes registered at the instance of the minor child. Similar allegations have been raised against a certain Ali and another man by name Sainudheen @ Kuttukka by the child. These men, like the respondent herein, are residents of the same neighbourhood and known to each other. The crimes registered against them are Crime Nos.722 and 723 of 2018 of the Kunnamangalam Police Station and involve serious offences under the POCSO Act, 2012.

3. In the above backdrop, the facts leading to the registration of the subject crime are dealt with below in some detail. On 15.11.2018 at about 4:20 PM, a minor boy along with his mother, approached the Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnamangalam Police Station and gave a statement alleging that the respondent is his neighbour and the child used to do sundry works for him. On a day, in the month of September, the respondent is alleged to have requested the child’s assistance for bringing materials from the market. The child was invited inside his house and he was told that the respondent was aware of the acts perpetrated on the child by Ali and Kuttukka, hinting thereby, the acts of sexual abuse. He demanded the child to accede to his carnal desires. The traumatized child made an attempt to leave. The respondent closed the door and thereafter subjected the child to carnal intercourse against the order of nature. The child specifically alleges that the respondent made him to lie down and thereafter penetrated his organ between his thighs and did certain abhorrent acts. The boy was then threatened not to divulge the incident to anyone and he was paid a sum of Rs.200/-. He also explained the circumstances which prevented him from disclosing the acts of sexual abuse to his family members. The facts came to light when the child was allegedly chased by one of the accused. The child, fearing the worst, ran home. Seeing the fright of the child, his mother questioned him. It is then that the child disclosed about the traumatic events that took place earlier. The police was alerted on 15.11.2018 and all the three crimes were registered on the same day.

4. The accused in Crime No.722 of 2018 was arrested on 19.11.2018. He moved an application for regular bail, but the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge taking note of the nature of allegations and the age of the victim. The court was of the view that no circumstances are made out to doubt his version.

5. The accused in Crime No.723 of 2018 was arrested on 26.11.2018 and he was remanded. His application for regular bail was dismissed holding that the investigation being in the early stages, circumstances warranted his continued detention in custody. The learned Sessions Judge also took note of the fact that the statement of the child under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is yet to be recorded.

6. The respondent, however, moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Court below contending that he is innocent. The learned Sessions Judge after detailing the allegations, passed the impugned order. Paragraph Nos. 4 to 6 of the order d