Pre-arrest bail granted in POCSO case due to lack of prima facie obscenity proof, accused's disability, and no antecedents.

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking prearrest bail.

2. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.374/2025 of Town Police Station, Kozhikode District. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 78 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS ), Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 11 (iv) r/w Section 12 and (vi) r/w of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant, after getting acquainted with the minor survivor through Instagram, forwarded pornographic videos to her account in October 2024 with the intent to entice her and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri. C.Dinesh, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the above crime. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the applicant's intentional criminal acts, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

6. The applicant is aged 19 years and the victim is aged 16 years. They met through Instagram and became friends. The only allegation is that the applicant sent pornographic videos to the Instagram account of the victim. There is nothing on record to show prima facie that the content in the video is obscene. Annexure B would show that the applicant is suffering from mixed learning disability. The District Medical Board, Perinthalmanna has certified that he suffers from 40% disability. He has no criminal antecedents. Considering the allegations made against the applicant, his custodial interrogation seems unnecessary. For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant.