JUDGMENT : - P.S. Rana, J. Present petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with case FIR No. 322 of 2014 dated 10.9.2014 registered under Sections 452, 354, 354-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 registered in Police Station Sarkaghat at District Mandi (HP). 2. It is pleaded that applicant is permanent resident of village Jheer P.O. Gehra Tehsil Sarkaghat District Mandi and is serving in State Education Department as teacher from last many years with full devotion and hard work and till date there is no complaint against him. It is further and applicant has been falsely implicated in present case. It is further pleaded that applicant is serving in GMS Panyali and minor prosecutrix is student of GMS Gehra and further pleaded that minor prosecutrix is student of 9th class and age of minor prosecutrix is 13 years old. It is further pleaded that FIR was not recorded promptly and FIR is an after thought story. It is pleaded that father of prosecutrix borrowed an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) from the applicant about two years back and did not return the amount. It is further pleaded that on the date of alleged incident after attending his school he visited house of father of minor prosecutrix and requested her father to return his money. It is also pleaded that when applicant demanded the loan money then father of prosecutrix abused the applicant and warned him not to visit his house again. It is further pleaded that false FIR has been registered against the applicant just to escape from the financial liability and to harass the applicant in illegal manner. It is further pleaded that applicant is serving in education department for the last 30 years. It is pleaded that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not essential. It is further pleaded that earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi. Prayer for acceptance of anticipatory bail application sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. It is pleaded that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not essential. It is further pleaded that earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi. Prayer for acceptance of anticipatory bail application sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report FIR No. 322 of 2014 dated 10.9.2014 registered under Sections 452, 354 and 354(A) of IPC and 7 of Protection of District Mandi H.P. There is recital in police report that on dated 10.9.2014 at 1 Noon prosecutrix aged 13 years came in police station along with her father and mother. There is further recital in police report that on dated 8.9.2014 at about 5.30 evening minor prosecutrix was present in her house. There is further recital in police report that grandfather and younger brother of minor prosecutrix were also present in the house. There is recital in police report that applicant came in the house and sat inside the room. There is further recital in police report that applicant had consumed wine. There is further recital in police report that minor prosecutrix offered water to the applicant and grandfather and younger brother of minor prosecutrix were also present. There is further recital in police report that grandfather and younger brother of minor prosecutrix sent the minor prosecutrix for preparation of tea. There is further recital in police report that thereafter her younger brother went for reading purpose and her grandfather went outside room to bring sheeps and goats. There is further recital in police report that when minor prosecutrix came in room along with tea then applicant took the tea and kept the cup of tea on the table. There is further recital in police report that thereafter applicant switched off the electricity of the room and caught the minor prosecutrix with force. There is further recital in police report that applicant also caught minor prosecutrix from her breast and told the minor prosecutrix to lay down her body upon the bed and also told There is further recital in police report that thereafter minor prosecutrix pushed the applicant and came to kitchen room in the running manner. There is further recital in police report that thereafter applicant came in kitchen room and minor prosecutrix ran from the back portion of kitchen and came to her mother. There is further recital in police report that thereafter applicant came in kitchen room and minor prosecutrix ran from the back portion of kitchen and came to her mother. There is further recital in police report that mother of minor prosecutrix was in cattle shed and when minor prosecutrix along with her mother came in her room the applicant was not present in room and he had fled away from the place of incident. There is further recital in police report that report was not registered earlier because father of minor prosecutrix was not in the house. There is further recital in police report that statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and site plan was also prepared. There is further recital in police report that applicant is concealing himself from arrest and custodial interrogation of applicant is essential in present case and prayer for rejection of anticipatory bail application is sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant and Court also heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State. 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that applicant is innocent and applicant did not commit any offence as mentioned in FIR cannot be decided at this stage. The same fact will be decided when case shall be decided on its own merits by parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 6. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that father of minor prosecutrix took Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) from the applicant and when applicant went to collect the loan money then in order to escape from financial liability and in order to put pressure upon applicant false FIR registered against the applicant and on this ground anticipatory bail application be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. The fact whether applicant had given loan to father of minor prosecutrix cannot be decided at this stage. The same fact will be decided by learned trial Court when due opportunity will be given to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. The fact whether applicant had given loan to father of minor prosecutrix cannot be decided at this stage. The same fact will be decided by learned trial Court when due opportunity will be given to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that applicant is government employee and there would be deemed suspension from services under Clause 2(b) of Rule 10 of CCS CCA Rules 1965 and on this ground anticipatory bail application be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that allegations against the applicant are very grave and heinous in nature. The allegations against the applicant are that applicant is a teacher and minor prosecutrix is a student of 9th class and applicant tried to outrage the modesty of minor prosectrix and committed overt act by way caughting minor prosecutrix forcibly and by way of caughting minor prosecutrix from her breast and by way of forcing minor prosecutrix to lay down her body on the bed. Allegations of sexual assault are increasing in the society day by day and sexual assault upon minor prosecutrix is stigma upon the society. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that Court should be sensitive in sexual assault cases. Even FIR has been registered against the applicant under Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Assault Offence Act 2012. Under the Protection of Children from Sexual Assault Offence Act 2012 sexual assault has been defined. Whoever with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child and makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person or does any other Act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault. In present case allegations against the applicant are that applicant had touched the breast of minor prosecutrix after switching off the light of room. As per Section 30 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Assault Offence Act 2012 there is presumption of culpable mental state and onus is upon the accused to prove that he had no such mental state. As per Section 30 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Assault Offence Act 2012 there is presumption of culpable mental state and onus is upon the accused to prove that he had no such mental state. The fact whether applicant has culpable mental state or not as mentioned under Section 30 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Assault Offence Act 2012 cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided during trial of the case only. It is well settled law that at the Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. (Se Se AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration. Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh.) In view of the fact that allegations against the applicant are grave and heinous in nature qua violation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Assault Offence Act 2012, Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Court is also of the opinion that if applicant is released on bail at this stage then investigation of the case will be adversely effected. Court is also of the opinion that if applicant is released on bail at this stage then interest of the State and general public will also be adversely effected. Facts of case laws cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant i.e. (1980)2 SCC 564 titled Baldev Raj vs. State of H.P., AIR 2011 SC 312 titled Siddaram Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 1998 Cri.L.J. 3969 titled Akhalaq Ahmed F. Patel vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011)1 SCC 694 titled Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others and AIR 2009 SC 3173 titled Savitri Agarwal and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another and facts of present case are entirely different. Hence case law cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances appearing on behalf of applicant did not relate to POCSO Act. Hence case law cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances appearing on behalf of applicant did not relate to POCSO Act. It is well settled law that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 is a special Act and specially meant for protection of children from sexual harassment cases. It is well settled law that when there is conflict between general law and special law then special law always prevails. In view of gravity of offence against the applicant qua the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the applicant on bail at this stage. Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of applicant is essential in present case in the ends of justice. Even as per Section 42-A of POCSO Act 2012 provisions of POCSO Act shall have overriding effect on the provisions of any other law to the extent of inconsistency. Even investigation is at initial stage of case as of today. Hence anticipatory bail application filed by applicant is rejected. Observations made in this order will not effect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Petition stands disposed of including all pending miscellaneous application(s) if any.