XXXXXXXXXX Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.123/2023 of Kalady Police Station. The said crime was registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 376, 376 (2) (f) and Sec. 376 AB and also under Ss. also Ss. 4(2)(d) (b), 6, 5(i), 5(n) and 5 (m) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

(2.) Aforesaid crime was registered on the allegation that the petitioner had committed sexual assault on his daughter, aged 3 years. The crime was registered based on the - 1/2 complaint submitted by the mother of the victim, who is the wife of the petitioner. Earlier, the child was subjected to examination by a Clinical Psychologist. Initially, it was reported by the clinical Psychologist that the child was well tutored by her mother and grand parents. Thereafter, to get further clarification in the matter, a Medical Board was constituted by the Chief Medical Officer of General Hospital, Ernakulam. Accordingly, on 29/5/2023, a sitting of the Medical Board was arranged. Even though the mother of the victim was informed by the Board, the child was not produced. Thereafter, on 5/6/2023, the Medical Board further convened a sitting, and the defacto complainant was directed to produce the child before the said Board. However, the defacto complainant informed the authorities concerned that she does not intend to produce the child before the Medical Board. Thereafter, on 12/6/2023, after taking note of these developments, a further order was passed by this court, which reads as follows:

(3.) Today, when the matter came up for consideration, it is reported by the learned Public Prosecutor that, consequent to the interim order passed by this court, a Medical Board was constituted and a further request was made to the defacto complainant on 19/6/2023 for the production of the child. However, the defacto complainant refused to accept that request and reiterated that she does not intend to produce the child before the Medical Board. It is also reported that the defacto complainant has produced a video footage to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner and certain discrepancies were found therein. Therefore, a notice was given to the defacto complainant under Sec. 91 of the Cr.P.C for producing the smartphone in which the said video footage was recorded. However, the defacto complainant did not produce the same as well. It is in these circumstances that this court is considering this application for pre-arrest bail submitted by the petitioner.