ORDER

Dated this the 31st day of August,2021 Petitioner is the first accused in crime No.97/2021 of Thumba Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district registered under Section 7 r/w. Section 8, Section 11 r/w. Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and Section 294(b), 323, 324, 354 and Section 34 of IPC. It is alleged that the petitioner-first accused committed sexual assault upon the minor victim on one day in November, 2018 and also in July, 2020 a day. Thereafter, on 10.02.2021 the petitioner along with his parents-accused No.2 and 3 manhandled and threatened the victim to withdraw from the relationship with the first petitioner. There is also allegation of criminal intimidation as against the 4th accused.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, first petitioner and the defacto complainant have been in love. It is also his contention that there is inordinate delay of about two years in lodging the FIS and in short according to him this is a falsely foisted case against him and ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 8 r/w. Section 7, Section 12 r/w. 11 of POCSO and Section 354 IPC is not made out. It is further alleged that as per the FIS it is alleged that the petitioner promised to marry the victim and subsequently he withdrew from the promise and that is one of the reason for the registration of this case and further that the petitioner had kissed her. So there is no allegation so as to attract an offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is only a boy aged 20 years and hence he seeks for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand produced copy of the FIR, FIS and 164 statement of the victim along with the copy of the statement submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thumba Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram City. In the Statement filed by the SHO, it is contended that apart from the allegation in the FIS while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. victim made some serious allegations against the petitioner of grabbing the breast and touching the vagina of the victim. It is also contended that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant were lovers and he promised to marry the victim and subsequently withdrew from the promise. Subsequently she was called to his house and when reached there petitioner along with his parents and 4th accused assaulted her and threatened her. So in view of the serious nature of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary and medical examination of the petitioner is inevitable and if he is released on bail there is every chance for intimidating the victim and family. Hence the learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposes the application for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner.

4. It has been stated in the FIS by the victim that from 8th standard onwards while the first petitioner was studying as a senior in the school where she was studying, they were in love and he had promised to marry her and his family members were also aware of their relationship and their attitude was also positive in their joining. Even after the first accused left the school he used to come and meet her and used to contact her over phone. She also narrated about their joint visit to Travancore Mall and seeing a movie together and the act of hugging made by the accused at that time. On another occasion, in 2020 July, at the house of Sreeja Teacher, accused kissed her. Again she narrated about an incident on 10.02.2021 where she was called to her his house and was manhandled by the first petitioner and parents and also an aunt and abusing her and was driven away from the house and chased with dog, thereafter she filed complaint.

5. In the copy of 164 statement produced, she reiterated these allegations. In the FIR and FIS she