A custodial trial is required in cases involving serious accusations against minors to protect the victim and ensure justice.

The earlier bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court by Annexure-A1 order dated 25.05.2022 for reasons recorded in that order. After noticing the circumstances in the case and the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court took the view that the case against the petitioner was a fit case which warrants a custodial trial. The submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor and the consideration of the same by this Court as recorded in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order dated 25.05.2022 in B.A.No.3053/2022 reads as follows:

‘ 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of bail. The statement recorded from the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C has been referred to point out the actual facts as revealed by the victim. It is submitted that after establishing a friendly relationship with the family of the victim, the petitioner stayed in the house of the victim for some days in 2020 and at that time, after giving expensive dresses and gifts to the victim, he sexually exploited her by also offering her a chance to act in films etc. After the victim’s mother forced the petitioner to leave the house, he continued to contact the victim through mobile phone. It is submitted that after the victim disclosed the sexual exploitation to her mother, the petitioner came to the house of the victim again and destroyed the mobile phone which he had given to the victim. It is submitted that, thereafter, for about 6-7 months, the petitioner did not contact the victim.

Thereafter, it is alleged that through the 2nd accused, the petitioner informed the victim that he was severely depressed and had attempted to commit suicide and was admitted to hospital. It is alleged that thereafter, by showing such false information the petitioner managed to meet the victim again and forced her to go to various places with him where she was sexually exploited. At this point of time, it is alleged that the petitioner also compelled the victim to file a complaint before the child- line authorities against her mother. It is submitted that after due enquiry, the complaint filed before the child-line authorities was found to be false and as an attempt by the petitioner to cover up his crime. It is submitted that the case has been registered against the petitioner on the basis of the information given by the victim and it is submitted that the statements recorded from the victim, including the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the jurisdictional Magistrate, clearly indicates the heinous nature of the offence committed by the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The allegation is that the petitioner had continuously abused the minor victim and had also managed to compel her to file a complaint against her mother before the childline authorities. This, prima facie, seems to have been done for the purpose of covering up the mistakes of the petitioner, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor. The fact that the victim, aged 14 years had again gone to meet the accused after the 2nd accused informed the victim that the petitioner/1st accused had attempted to commit suicide and was admitted to hospital shows that the petitioner cannot be allowed to come into contact with the victim again. For all these reasons, I am also compelled to observe that this is a case which warrants a custodial trial.'

2. It is seen from the record of this case that the petitioner thereafter approached the Fast Track Special Court, Palakkad with an application for bail suppressing the fact that he had earlier approached this Court seeking bail. The said application was rightly rejected by the Fast Track Special Court, Palakkad having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, including the observations of this Court that it is a fit case fo