ORDER : 1. The applicant is a Post Graduate Doctor. Based on a statement given by his own son, a boy aged 9 years and studying in the V standard, a Crime has been registered against him at the Kannur Town Police Station, under 9(h) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Annexure-A7 is the complaint, which is dated 18.7.2018, allegedly lodged by the minor boy. He states that his father and mother are divorced and are residing separately. Both parents are doctors. While he was studying in the II or III standard, he used to sleep with his father as and when his mother went to attend hospital calls at night. His father used to touch his genitals and tickle him. 3. Appearing for the applicant, Sri.Ramesh Chander, the learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the minor child of the applicant has been coaxed to lodge a complaint against the applicant to seek variation of the order passed by the Family Court granting visitation rights to the applicant. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the applicant herein is a Post Graduate Doctor and is working at the Co-operative Hospital at Payanoor, as a General Physician. There was intense discord in the matrimony and the applicant had divorced his wife as per Annexure-A1 agreement dated 5.8.2017. In Annexure-A1, a provision was incorporated as per which, the custody of the child was retained with the mother. Immediately thereafter, the wife of the applicant filed Annexure-A2 petition under the provisions of the Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 for divorce, which, according to the learned Senior Counsel, was dismissed in view of AnnexureA1. Referring to Annexure-A2, it was contended that even according to his wife, the spouses had resided together only till 15.08.2009. If that be true, the allegation in the complaint that even in the year 2015, the spouses were living together as husband and wife is clearly false. The statement of the child is that he was abused by his own father about 3-4 years back. During that time, the child was with the mother and they were living separately. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the applicant herein had filed a petition seeking custody invoking the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The statement of the child is that he was abused by his own father about 3-4 years back. During that time, the child was with the mother and they were living separately. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the applicant herein had filed a petition seeking custody invoking the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. In the petition, after hearing the parties, the Family Court had passed order dated 23.04.2018 granting visitation rights to the applicant. Several months after the order was passed, to seek variation of that order and to prevent the applicant from having visitation rights, such grave allegations have been levelled against him, is the submission advanced by the learned Senior Counsel. 4. Sri.Amjad Ali, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the prayer and submitted that the investigation is still in the early stages. The victim child, in unequivocal terms have stated that he was sexually assaulted by the applicant. It is further submitted that when a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting to commit an offence under 9 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Special Court is mandated to presume that person has committed or abetted the commission of the offence, unless the contrary is proved. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no reason to doubt the case of the prosecution at this preliminary stage. The allegations cannot be said to be false and frivolous, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The records made available would show that the relationship between the applicant and his wife has ended in divorce. Admittedly from the year 2009, the applicant and his wife has been residing separately. Annexure-A1 would further show that the child has been with the mother all through. It is also seen from Annexure-A6 that an order has been passed by the Family Court granting visitation rights to the applicant on specific dates. Annexure-A5 is the objection to the custody petition, which is dated 23.4.2018 filed by the wife. In the said objection, the wife has no case that the child was subjected to sexual abuse by the applicant herein. It was on 18th of June, 2018 that a complaint levelling sexual abuse was lodged by the child against the father, that too, after the order granting visitation rights was passed by the Family Court. 6. In the said objection, the wife has no case that the child was subjected to sexual abuse by the applicant herein. It was on 18th of June, 2018 that a complaint levelling sexual abuse was lodged by the child against the father, that too, after the order granting visitation rights was passed by the Family Court. 6. There is yet another reason which would prima facie render the allegation against the applicant suspicious. The child has stated that he had to be dragged to the Family Court to meet his father. He states that he had disclosed all these aspects to the counsellor of the Family Court. If such a disclosure was made to the counsellor, he is mandated under Chapter V of the Act to report the same. The petition for custody was filed on 9.3.2018 and the objection was filed by the mother and orders were passed in the month of April, 2018. One would have expected the complaint to be filed much earlier rather than in the month of July, 2018. 7. It is true that this Court while considering the bail application of an accused who has violated the provisions of the POCSO, 2012 will not be justified in conducting a mini trial. I am also not unmindful of the statutory presumption available to the prosecution under 29 of the Act. At the same time, this Court will not be justified in shutting its eyes to the factual allegations and the contention of the applicant that he has been wrongfully accused of having committed a very grave crime on his own child. 8. In Subhash Kasinath Mahajan (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra and Another [2018 (6) SCC 454] the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to consider the issue of reverse burden vis-a-vis the human rights of an accused. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab [ 2008 (16) SCC 417 ], it was observed as follows in paragraph No.65 of the report. “65. Presumption of innocence is a human right. No doubt, placing of burden of proof on accused in certain circumstances may be permissible but there cannot be presumption of guilt so as to deprive a person of his liberty without an opportunity before an independent forum or Court. In Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, [ 2008 (16) SCC 417 ], it was observed: "33. No doubt, placing of burden of proof on accused in certain circumstances may be permissible but there cannot be presumption of guilt so as to deprive a person of his liberty without an opportunity before an independent forum or Court. In Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, [ 2008 (16) SCC 417 ], it was observed: "33. Presumption of innocence is a human right as envisaged under Art.14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it, however, cannot perse be equated with the fundamental right and liberty adumbrated in Art.21 of the Constitution of India, It, having regard to the extent thereof, would not militate against other statutory provisions (which, of course, must be read in the light of the constitutional guarantees as adumbrated in Art.20 and Art.21 of the Constitution of India), xxxx xxxx xxxx 35. A right to be presumed innocent, subject to the establishment of certain foundational facts and burden of proof, to a certain extent, can be placed on an accused, It must be construed having regard to the other international conventions and having regard to the fact that it has been held to be constitutional. Thus, a Statute may be constitutional but a prosecution thereunder may not be held to be one, indisputably, civil liberties and rights of citizens must be upheld. xxxx xxxx xxxx 43. The issue of reverse burden vis -a -vis the human rights regime must also be noticed. The approach of the common law is that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove a person guilty. Indisputably, this common law principle was subject to parliamentary legislation to the contrary. The concern now shown worldwide is that Parliaments had frequently been making inroads on the basic presumption of innocence. Unfortunately, unlike other countries no systematic study has been made in India as to how many offences are triable in the Court where the legal burden is on the accused. In the United Kingdom it is stated that about 40% of the offences triable in the Crown Court appear to violate the presumption. (See "The Presumption of Innocence in English Criminal Law", 1996, CRIM. L. REV. 306, at p. 309.) 44. In the United Kingdom it is stated that about 40% of the offences triable in the Crown Court appear to violate the presumption. (See "The Presumption of Innocence in English Criminal Law", 1996, CRIM. L. REV. 306, at p. 309.) 44. In Art.11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) it is stated: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law...." Similar provisions have been made in Art.6.2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) and Art. 14.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). xxxx xxxx xxxx 47. We may notice that Sachs, J. in State v. Coetzee, 1997 (2) LRC 593 explained the significance of the presumption of innocence in the following terms: "There is a paradox at the heart of all criminal procedure in that the more serious the crime and the greater the public interest in securing convictions of the guilty, the more important do constitutional protections of the accused become. The starting point of any balancing enquiry where constitutional rights are concerned must be that the public interest in ensuring that innocent people are not convicted and subjected to ignominy and heavy sentences massively outweighs the public interest in ensuring that a particular criminal is brought to book. ... Hence the presumption of innocence, which serves not only to protect a particular individual on trial, but to maintain public confidence in the enduring integrity and security of the legal system. Reference to the prevalence and severity of a certain crime therefore does not add anything new or special to the balancing exercise. The perniciousness of the offence is one of the givens, against which the presumption of innocence is pitted from the beginning, not a new element to be put into the scales as part of a justificatory balancing exercise, if this were not so, the ubiquity and ugliness argument could be used in relation to murder, rape, car -jacking, housebreaking, drug smuggling, corruption ... the list is unfortunately almost endless, and nothing would be left of the presumption of innocence, save, perhaps, for its relic status as a doughty defender of rights in the most trivial of cases." In view of the above, an accused is certainly entitled to show to the Court, if he apprehends arrest, that case of the complainant was motivated. If it can be so shown there is no reason that the Court is not able to protect liberty of such a person. There cannot be any mandate under the law for arrest of an innocent. The law has to be interpreted accordingly. (emphasis supplied) As held in Dr. Subhash Kasinath Mahajan (supra), an accused is certainly entitled to show to the Court, if he apprehends arrest, that case of the complainant was falsely motivated. If there are materials which prima facie show that the complaint is motivated for extraneous reasons, there is no reason why the court should not protect the person, who has been wrongfully accused from being arrested and detained. 9. It is evident from the prosecution records that the parents of the child are well educated and well-placed in life. Their only son is of tender age. It appears that the child has been made a weapon of choice by one of the parent to put up a fight against the other parent. There cannot be any doubt that their unusual fight and the levelling of very grave allegations of sexual abuse against the father would have a huge emotional toll on the psyche of the minor child. It is appalling to note that the parents, in their determination to fight with each other, have intentionally or otherwise failed to protect their child from the damaging emotional consequences that would be caused to him. 10. After having considered the entire materials, I am of the considered view that the contention of the applicant that such serious allegations have been levelled for securing a favourable order in the petition for custody pending before the Family Court cannot be nonchalantly brushed aside. The prosecution has no case that the applicant is involved in other similar offenses or that he is likely to make himself scarce. The child is in the custody of the mother. In view of the above, the custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary for an effective investigation. The prosecution has no case that the applicant is involved in other similar offenses or that he is likely to make himself scarce. The child is in the custody of the mother. In view of the above, the custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary for an effective investigation. It is made clear that the observations made above are made for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The investigation may be proceeded with subject to the directions given in this order. The observations shall have no bearing before the court below, if and when the case comes up for trial. 11. In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.705 of 2018 of the Kannur Town Police Station, on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. However, the above order shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 10 A.M and 1 P.M. for a period of one month or till final report is filed whichever is earlier. (ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. (iii) He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.