IMPORTANT POINTS :
The Act is a landmark legislation to prevent sexual abuse and exploitation of children. The Act intends to protect the children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography- Dignity of the child has been laid immense emphasis in the scheme of the legislation-The court cannot turn a blind eye to undisputed facts in a case- The courts shall honour the spirit and intent behind the legislation and at the same time guard against misuse of its provisions.

1. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’).

2. The petitioner is the accused in the case registered as Crime No.592/2018 of the Nedupuzha Police Station under Sections 7 read with 8, 9(p) read with 10 and 11(iii) read with 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3. The petitioner claims to be a Psychologist. He had conducted psychological therapy to the victim girl, who is aged fourteen years. It is alleged that, during the months of May and June, 2018, while the petitioner conducted counselling sessions to the victim, he showed her video scenes with obscene contents and that he caught hold of her hand with sexual intent. It is also alleged that he gave the victim girl a stamp, depicting nude picture of a man and woman, and a letter through another girl, who was his patient.

4. The mother of the victim girl gave a complaint to the Child Welfare Committee regarding the acts allegedly committed by the petitioner on/towards her daughter. The Child Welfare Committee recorded the statement of the victim girl and forwarded it to the District Police Chief, Thrissur (which was ultimately sent to the Nedupuzha police station). Thereafter, the statement of the victim girl was recorded by the police and on the basis of that statement, Crime No.592/2018 of the Nedupuzha police station was registered against the petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the case diary.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had sent a lawyer notice to the mother of the victim girl claiming his professional fees. Learned counsel has pointed out that it was only more than one month after the date of receipt of the lawyer notice, the mother of the victim girl made complaint to the Child Welfare Committee and it indicates the falsity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature.

7. The investigating officer has recorded the statement of the victim girl. Her statement has also been recorded by the Magistrate concerned under S.164 of the Code. The sum and substance of the allegations against the petitioner in these statements is that he showed the victim girl video scenes containing obscene contents and that one day, he caught hold of her hand and also made attempt to touch her breast. There is also an allegation that the petitioner sent her a stamp depicting nude photograph and also a letter through another girl.

8. The first information statement would show that when the alleged acts were committed by the petitioner, the parents of the victim girl were abroad and she was living with her grandfather. It is revealed from the first information statement that when the mother of the girl returned from abroad on 17.07.2018, the girl had told her about the acts committed by the petitioner. In-spite of such disclosure made in the month of July, 2018, by the victim girl regarding the acts committed by the petitioner, the mother gave the complaint to the Child Welfare Committee only on 22.09.2018. By that time, the petitioner had sent a lawyer notice to the mother of the victim girl claiming an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as professional fees. She had received the lawyer notice on 08.09.2018. Even then, no complaint against the petitioner was made immediately to the police or to the Child Welfare Committee. No explanation is also forthcoming for the delay.

9. Mere delay in reporting the matter to the authorities concerned, especially sexual assault on a minor girl, is immaterial and it would not be fatal to the prosecution case. However, in the instant case, it is not the delay alone that is significant. The significant fact is that the complaint was given to