The court established that the gravity of sexual assault charges against minors necessitates caution in granting bail, particularly where there is potential for influencing witnesses.

ORDER

1. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.786/2021 of Edathala police station, Ernakulam, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 354A (i) of IPC and Sections 8 , 7, 10, 9(I), 9(m), 9(n) of the POCSO Act.

2. Prosecution case is that the petitioner who is the father of a girl aged four years, who is bound to legally protect the child, one day in May, 2021 at about 3.30 pm touched the chest and vagina of the victim and kissed there and thereby sexually assaulted the child. On 24.7.2021 at about 8.30 pm while travelling with the child on the motor cycle, accused pressed the vagina of the child and thereby molested the child and committed the offence aforementioned.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the mother of the victim girl had contact with several men and petitioner is one among the several unfortunate victims trapped by the mother of the victim girl. She has relationship with a man in Kongorpalli which led his wife to file complaint against him in Alangad Police Station. Thereafter she lived with one business man and gave birth to two of his children. She left him registering Crime No.98/2021 of Mala police station. Thereafter she was living with a different name in Kuzhivelipadi. Petitioner, who is a priest of Maradu Church without knowing her antecedents and criminal past, met her few months ago for counseling. Believing her stories and seeing the little children he decided to help her. Then she started to persuade the petitioner to give up his priestly robes and marry her. When he refused, she filed complaint to the high priests in the diocese of the petitioner. Since she did not get the desired result, this false complaint was filed.

4. Petitioner produced true copy of the marriage certificate (Annexure-A3) issued by Church of Our Lady of Nativity, Muttinakal, Varapuzha and the name of the de facto complainant is differently shown in that certificate. Annexure-A4 is the copy of the baptism certificate of the child issued on 1.9.2021. Annexures-A5 and A6 are the copies of FIR and FIS alleged to have been registered at the instance of de facto complainant against one Ayyappa Das under Section 376(2) IPC . So according to the petitioner, the de facto complainant is blackmailing men, one after other and he is the last victim and since a crime has already been registered against another man, she has filed the present complaint using the minor child against him. The learned counsel would also contend that in the FIS, de facto complainant had stated that she is living with the petitioner for the last five years. Whereas Annexure-A5 and A6 the FIR and FIS, against Ayyappa Das would show that her contention is that Ayyappa Das committed rape upon her one day in October, 2015 and thereafter lived together with him till April, 2020.

5. Learned counsel would also contend that in the complaint petitioner has been described as the father of the child. But the respondent produced copy of the report along with the copy of FIR and FIS. In the report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of police, it has been stated that as a part of investigation, the victim child was subjected to medical examination and 164 statement of the victim had been taken, in which the victim has clearly stated with respect to the sexual abuse at the instance of the petitioner. It is also reported that the petitioner who is the Priest of the Church after discharging his duties in the Church used to leave the Church during night and used to stay in the Apartment wherein the victim girl and her sister are residing on rent with their mother. It is also stated that after the second incident on 24.7.2021, he is absconding. The statement in the FIS that the petitioner is the father of the victim girl has also been corrected subsequently.

6. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the scooter involved in the incident has to be recovered and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary and i