The court's decision was based on the specific accusation of sexual assault by the accused with his minor daughter and the legislative intent behind the POCSO Act to protect children from sexual offences.

JUDGMENT :

Ram Krishna Gautam, J.

This application for grant of anticipatory bail has been moved by Deepak Chugh in Case Crime No. 250 of 2019, under Sections 323, 506, 498-A, 354(a) I.P.C. read with Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.

2. Learned counsel for applicant argued that there is a family dispute in between accused and his wife, who were married in year 2001. She went with her kids to her parental house and she was with her paramours, which was never complained by accused to anyone because of family prestige. On 28.06.2019, she along with her siblings went to her parental house and even after request on birthday of applicant on 29.06.2019, she did not turn up. On 04.07.2019 she sent some photographs over whats app. On 09.07.2019 applicant was at Mumbai regarding his business work and he came back on 14.07.2019. He found obscene messages with obscene selfie photos over mobile phone of his wife. This was protested, resulting abuse by her and she demanded Rs.3 crores in lieu of Talaq, otherwise to face dire consequences. She again went to her parental house. Those mobile numbers and name of holders were reported to police by way of application dated 05.08.2019. As a counter blast, this false case for offence punishable under under Sections 323, 506, 498-A, 354(a) I.P.C. read with Section 7/8 POCSO Act has been got registered on 19.08.2019 for alleged occurrence of 05.07.2019, which was much delayed and under concoction, owing to above family dispute. The maximum sentence for offence is five years and by putting applicant in jail her entire prestige will go away, for which his wife is adamant to snatch. Hence, this anticipatory bail application was moved before court of Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, but it was rejected by Special Judge (POCSO Act) / Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 03.09.2019. Hence, this application.

3. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed bail with this contention that there is accusation of sexual assault against father with his own girl, aged about 13 years. Offence is very heinous. Hence, bail be rejected.

4. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through first information report, it is apparent that this case was got registered by way of presenting an application before Senior Superintendent of Police, whereby case has been registered against applicant for offence punishable under Sections 323, 506, 498-A, 354(a) I.P.C. read with Section 7/8 POCSO Act, for an occurrence of 05.07.2019 and it was registered on 19.08.2019. There is specific accusation of sexual assault by accused applicant with her daughter victim, aged about 13 years and when protested complainant informant was beaten and ousted from her house. She went with her children. There is allegation of persistent occurrence of such type of offence, since last two years and this was occurrence of 05.07.2019, at about 3 A.M., which was complained and this was reported. The statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. is fully intact. In application, moved by accused applicant before Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar, the fact that victim is of 13 years was admitted by accused himself. The application by accused applicant was moved after above occurrence of 05.07.2019, when this protest was there.

5. No doubt, offence punishable under Section 7/8 POCSO Act is punishable with five years of sentence, but the legislation legislated this special Act with a view to protect children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography and provide for establishment of special courts for trial of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. This Act was legislated in furtherance of Article 15 of the Constitution, which, inter alia, confers upon the State powers to make special provisions for children. Article 39 provides that the State shall in particular directive policy towards securing that the tender age of children are