Pre-arrest bail denied due to serious allegations of sexual assault against a minor, reflecting severe implications if bail is granted.

ORDER

This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.369 of 2025 of Chittarikkal Police Station, Kasaragod, registered alleging offences punishable under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, apart from section 6(1) r/w section 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012.

3. According to the FIR, the accused, who was the vicar of St.Pious Church, Athirumavu, had sexually abused the victim - a boy aged 16 years, during the period from 15.05.2024 to 13.08.2024 and also committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on him during the said period and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Sri. P. VIjayabhanu, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Smt. Nanditha S., the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the petitioner is innocent of the allegations. It was further submitted that the crime has been registered due to an enmity of the father of the defacto complainant against the petitioner as petitioner had been rendering church ministry against drugs and alcohol and the defacto complainant's father was involved in illicit distillation and storage of liquor. It was also submitted that the defacto complainant had never stayed in the Church with the petitioner and therefore the allegations are all false as there were always people around him. According to the learned Senior Counsel, during the period from 11.05.2024 to 18.05.2024, petitioner had travelled to Kothamangalam, a distant place from Kasaragod, to attend the Holy Communion function of petitioner's nephew, which was held on 13.05.2024 and further that, on 14.05.2024, he had taken part in a funeral function at Thrissur. It was also submitted that from 16.05.2024 to 17.05.2024, petitioner was at his paternal home in Kothamangalam with his parents and it was only on 18.05.2024 that he returned to Kasaragod that too along with his parents and family members. The learned Counsel argued that petitioner had suffered an accident on 23.05.2024 and he had to undergo a surgery and thereafter he was discharged only on 28.05.2024 which entailed complete bed rest for three months. Relying upon Annexure-4, petitioner is alleged to have been unable to even attend to his primary needs without the assistance of others, during those periods. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the aforesaid circumstances clearly indicate that the allegation of petitioner having subjected the victim to sexual assault from 15.05.2024 onwards is not only unbelievable but also impossible and hence anticipatory bail ought to be granted.

5. Smt. Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that the prosecution allegations are serious and the petitioner is alleged to have subjected the victim to heinous sexual assaults and therefore custodial interrogation is necessary. It was further submitted that after the abuse, the victim started undergoing mental trauma and thereafter he even attended a retreat in the Church and subsequently due to a legal awareness programme in the School, he obtained the courage to inform the child-line and it is only thus that the incident came to light. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, in the light of the allegations, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it will send a wrong signal to the society and the petitioner has been absconding all along.

6. I have considered the rival contentions and have also perused the statement of the victim given to the Police as well as to the Magistrate.

7. The victim is a 16 year old boy, who was also serving as the sexton of the Church