The main legal point established in the judgment is the gravity of sexual offences, the violation of fundamental rights, and the need for just punishment as emphasized by previous judgments and legal provisions.

1. The Petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused, apprehends arrest at the hands of the Respondent-Police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 r/w. 376 of I.P.C., in Crime No.7 of 2014 on the file of the Respondent-Police and hence, seeks Anticipatory Bail.

2. It is very sad state of affairs that for an alleged offences committed by 59 years old man against a 13 year old girl, who was sexually assaulted and made her pregnant and when the case is booked under Section 6 of Protection of child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 r/w. 376 of I.P.C., he has come forward with the Application seeking Anticipatory Bail to project himself clean before the society.

3. The Petitioner has filed this Petition that one Ulagammai has given a Complaint against the Petitioner that the Petitioner has rapped the girl without her consent and she is a minor. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is having one female and two male children and his daughter is married and the male children are not married.

4. According to the Petitioner, he is a local villager, the de-facto Complainant and her destitute mother used to visit the Petitioner’s house frequently and the de facto Complainant worked as a helper in Indian Cloth Store at Pallathur and helped her mother at house maid works. Further, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has not committed any offence and he is an innocent and in order to damage the dignity of the Petitioner, with an ulterior motive, the Complaint has been made.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) relied upon the Complaint which is reflected in the FIR wherein it has been stated that the minor girl could not continue her education and stopped her studies in the middle of 9th standard and her mother used to go for construction work in the morning at 07.00 a.m. and return in the evening. The de facto Complainant used to be alone at home. The Petitioner was residing close to the de facto Complainant’s house. One day the Petitioner came to the de facto Complainant’s house and asked her to come out and when the de facto Complainant came out, the Petitioner took her to the back side of the house and removed her dress and indulged in intercourse and thereafter asked her to wear the dress and he gave a sum of Rs.20/- to the de facto Complainant to buy eatables and threatened her that the incident should not be informed to any one. On several occasions, the Petitioner used to visit the house of the de facto Complainant and had intercourse. As the de facto Complainant’s stomach found to be big, the de facto Complainant’s mother took the de facto Complainant to the hospital on 11.04.2014 wherein the Doctor examined the de facto Complainant and confirmed six months pregnancy.

6. At that time, the de facto Complainant informed her mother about the incident and in turn, her mother informed the same to the friends, relatives and others. When the mother the de facto Complainant along with others asked the Petitioner about the incident, he has stated that he is not responsible for the pregnancy of the victim girl and he has not rapped the minor girl. Thereafter, the Complaint was given to the police and the case has been registered by Kothamangalam All Women Police Station in Crime No.7 of 2014 under Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 r/w Sections 376 & 506(i), IPC on 14.05.2014. Whether the Petitioner has committed rape or not is a point to be decided based on evidence. The crime alleged against the Petitioner is a serious one.

7. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Rafiq v. State of U.P., 1980 (4) SCC 262, has observed that “when a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not mere physical injury, but the deep sense of some deathless shame…judicial response to human rights cannot be blunted by legal bigotry.”

8. Justice Arijit Pasayat in the Judgment in Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan