The court highlights the scrutiny required for delay in FIRs in sexual offences, emphasizing the need to evaluate potential false implications.

ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short “ BNSS ”).

2. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.804/2025 of Shornur Police Station, Palakkad District, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 76(3), 354A(1)(i) and 449 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, and Sections 8 , 7, 4(1), 3(b) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012.

3. The prosecution allegation can be epitomised as follows:

The accused is the survivor’s mother’s friend. The survivor is a minor girl aged 16 years. On a Saturday in between 01.01.2022 and 31.12.2022 while the survivor was aged 13 years at that time, the accused with the intention to sexually abuse her remained in the bedroom of the rented house, where the survivor was residing and put his hands through the inner side of the dress worn by the survivor and caught on the breast and abdomen of the survivor and inserted his fingers into the private part of the survivor and thereby committed the aforementioned offences.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is wholly innocent of the allegations levelled against him and that the present case is a clear instance of false implication. It is contended that the mother of the minor victim had borrowed a substantial sum of money from the petitioner and, with the intention of evading repayment of the said amount, has fabricated the present complaint by misusing the minor child. In support of this contention, a cheque leaf allegedly issued and signed by the victim’s mother in favour of the petitioner has been produced. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was employed abroad and that the victim’s mother, who was estranged from her husband, had expressed her desire to marry the petitioner. However, the petitioner contracted marriage with another woman on 20.10.2025. According to the petitioner, this development has triggered animosity on the part of the victim’s mother, which has culminated in the foisting of the present false case against him.

6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, highlighting the serious nature of the offence attributed to the accused. The learned counsel appearing for the victim vehemently opposed the application. She submitted that, in the event of the petitioner being released on bail, the possibility of the petitioner repeating similar offences cannot be ruled out. She further expressed serious concerns regarding the safety and security of the minor victim if the petitioner is enlarged on bail.

7. A perusal of the records reveals that the FIR was registered three years after the alleged incident. This inordinate delay cannot be viewed lightly, particularly in light of the petitioner’s contention that the proceedings were foisted by the victim’s mother to wreak vengeance and evade the repayment of a substantial debt.

8. While I am mindful of the settled law that delay in lodging an FIR in sexual offence cases is often of little consequence as the social stigma and the victim's future often weigh heavily on the minds of parents, this principle is not absolute. Where there is a discernible possibility of false implication, such a delay must be scrutinised closely.

9. In the present case, the petitioner consistently maintai