Court granted anticipatory bail despite allegations, considering insufficient evidence and the appellant's age.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 26.08.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.2097 of 2025 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court for the Trial of Cases Relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence Against Women and Children, Thiruvananthapuram, rejecting the grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant in Crime No.318 of 2025 of Thiruvallom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, who is a relative of the victim, had on multiple occasions exhibited his private parts to the minor victim, aged 16 years, while she was on her way to school, with sexual intent, and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short, ‘ BNS ’), Sections 3 (2)(va) and 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (for short, ‘SC/ST Act’), apart from Section 12 r/w Sections 11 (i) and 11(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’).

3. I have heard Sri. Latheesh Sebastian, the learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Smt. Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor. Though the defacto complainant was served notice of this appeal through the Investigating Officer on 27.09.2025, there is no appearance on her behalf.

4. A reading of the FIR reveals that the accused is alleged to have, on multiple occasions prior to 20.03.2025, while the victim was on her way to school, exhibited his private parts with sexual intent and abused her. The statement of the victim reveals that the applicant is her relative, with whom there are some disputes, and on three occasions, while she was on her way to school, the accused used to invite her attention by making some sounds and exhibited his private parts when she glanced at him. However, there is nothing available in the records made available to this Court to indicate that the alleged acts were done by the appellant with intent to commit a crime against a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. It is, therefore, doubtful whether the offences under the SC/ST Act would be applicable.

5. If not for the offences under the SC/ST Act, the accused is alleged to have committed a bailable offence under Section 79 of BNS apart from offences under the POCSO Act. Considering that the investigation has revealed through the statement of some of the neighbours that the appellant is not a person who indulges in acts as alleged, and bearing in mind the alleged illness of the appellant pointed out in the bail application, I am of the view that the appellant can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. I am fortified in the above view, since investigation conducted so far has also identified some disputes pending between the victim’s family and that of the appellant. Moreover, applicant is 63 years in age as well.

6. In the decision in Sushila Aggarwal and Others v.

State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, [2020 (5) SCC 1] , it has been observed that the court can grant limited custody for the purpose of completing the investigation. The circumstances arising in the instant case, persuade this Court to treat this as one such case that needs only a limited custody for the purpose of completing the investigation.

7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, and the appellant is granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

(a) Appellant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 06.11.2025 from 10.00 am to 05.00 pm and shall subject himself to interrogation, which period shall be treated as limited custody for the purpose of investigation.

(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arre