Recently, in the matter of XXX v. State of Kerala, the High Court of Kerala has granted bail to a person accused of offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

The bench was headed by Justice Kauser Edappagath , observed that the victim had filed a complaint after 5 years of incident happen.

There is absolutely no allegation of rape alleged to have been taken place in the year 2017. It appears that on the next day, a crime was registered against the victim on the complaint of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code as Crime No. 2148/2022"., said Court.

In the said matter, the Petitioner sexually abused his sister and the petitioner was charged under section Sections 354, and 354A IPC, and Sections 9(I)(n) read with Section 10 and Section 6 read with Section 5(I)(n) of the POCSO Act.

The Counsel member of the petioner, Advocate Navaneeth N. Nath, submitted that he was falsely implicated and there implicated.

On the other hand, the member of the second party argued that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the petitioner, and he would thus not be entitled to bail.

The Court noted that the victim filed a complaint on December 29, 2022, for the first time after 5 years of incident happen.

However, it further noted that there was no allegation of rape alleged to have been taken place in 2017. Subsequently, the petitioner had also complained against the victim pursuant to which a crime was registered against the latter. The Court noted that it was thereafter that the petitioner gave a statement to the police in the crime registered against him.

"All these sequence of events give rise to doubt as to the fabrication of the prosecution case. It is true that, the petitioner is a habitual offender and he is involved in another ten cases. However, considering the fact that the prosecution version is doubtful and the applicant has been in custody for the last more than 35 days, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant," the Court held.