ORDER : 1. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Annexure-A6 Crime No. 644/2019 of Binanipuram Police Station, Ernakulam, registered for offences punishable under Secs. 376(2)(d), 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Secs. 3(b), 4, 5m, 5n, 6, 7, 8, 9l, 9m, 9n, 10, 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The crime has been so registered on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the mother of the minor victim girl now aged 6 years on 23.10.2019 at about 8 p.m. (crime registered on the same day at 8.45 p.m.) in respect of the alleged incidents which happened for the period from 01.01.2016 to 08.05.2019. The petitioner has been arrested in this case on 21.11.2019 and after his remand, he has been under detention since then. 2. The brief of the prosecution case is to the effect that the petitioner/accused now aged 38 years is married to the first informant herein (who is the mother of the minor victim girl now aged 6 years) and the first informant would make various allegations against the petitioner in the abovesaid FIS. The copy of the First Information Statement given by the mother of the victim girl is produced as Annexure-A1. It is alleged therein that about three years back, when the victim girl was hardly aged 3 years, the mother had found that the petitioner had inserted the sheath of the jackfruit seed into the vaginal area of the minor victim girl and when the mother questioned the petitioner, he said that he is doing it only as a joke and he said that he would apologize. Further that, the petitioner used to frequently speak in sexually coloured language. However, that on 08.05.2019, the petitioner had undressed the victim girl and pressed her to his body and given kiss to her face, neck and her genital area. That the victim girl came running to the first informant (mother), without dress and the victim told her mother about the said incident and the mother immediately questioned the petitioner and there occurred altercation between them. Further, the first informant (mother of the victim/wife of the petitioner), then threatened the petitioner that she would ensure that he is way to face the court of law. Further, the first informant (mother of the victim/wife of the petitioner), then threatened the petitioner that she would ensure that he is way to face the court of law. Further that due to marital disputes, the mother of the victim and the victim had left the petitioner's house on 06.07.2019. Further, Annexure-A2 is the copy of the statement given by the minor victim girl to the police on 23.10.2019. It is mainly in the form of a question-answer format. The victim girl has not said anything about the alleged incident, which is said to have happened about three years back, as narrated by her mother regarding the alleged insertion of the sheath of the jackfruit seed, etc. As regards kissing aspect, the girl has stated an answer to question No. 7 that her father used to lick her cheeks, neck and chest, which the girl did not never like. However, a perusal of Annexure-A2 would show that the victim girl has not stated anywhere therein that the petitioner has kissed her genital area, as alleged by the mother. Whereas, she would only say that the petitioner used to press her chest and genital area. Further, she has given a specific answer to question no. 25 that the petitioner had pressed her genital area when she was wearing her dresses and not in an undressed stage. Further, she would also say that the petitioner had pressed her genital area with his fingers, etc. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are absolutely false and fabricated and are the product of evil mind of his wife, who is the first respondent, who was creating the host of the problems in the petitioner's marital life. The petitioner's mother is an aged lady, who is suffering from stroke and she needed delicate care and attention and the petitioner's wife was adamantly refusing to take care of his mother, which resulted the petitioner having to completely taking over the responsibility of taking care of the mother. Further that the petitioner came to know that his wife was maintaining illicit affair with another man and on a day in February, 2019, the petitioner's wife was caught red handed with a young man in the petitioner's house. Further that the petitioner came to know that his wife was maintaining illicit affair with another man and on a day in February, 2019, the petitioner's wife was caught red handed with a young man in the petitioner's house. Since the petitioner is involved as a teacher imparting religious instructions in a Mosque, the matter was also apprised to the local Jama-Ath authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner's wife has given an undertaking as per Annexure-A4 agreement dated 27.02.2019 that no such incidents will be repeated and the petitioner's wife Shejeena has signed in Annexure-A4 agreement and that too in the presence of independent witnesses. Since the petitioner's wife continued with her extremely illegal activities, the petitioner was constrained and was not even looking after her children and his mother, the petitioner was constrained to marry another lady one Noorshia, who is a divorced lady on 01.09.2019. In retaliation to the petitioner's second marriage, the petitioner's wife had filed a false complaint to the SHO, Binanipuram, which led to the registration of Annexure-A5 Crime No. 553/2019 of Binanipuram Police Station on 09.09.2019, in which the petitioner has been arrayed as accused for offences as per Secs. 323, 341 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, etc. It is immediately after the petitioner's re-marriage on 01.09.2019 and the registration of Annexure-A5 crime on 09.09.2019 that she has now come forward to raise the false allegations as per Annexure-A1 FIS, which led to the registration of the instant Annexure-A6 crime on 23.10.2019. The petitioner would point out that Shejeena was always threatening that she would take the petitioner to the court, as her illicit affair was detected by the petitioner and as she never wanted to look after the children and his mother. Further it is pointed out that the petitioner's wife has clearly stated even in Annexure-A1 FIS that she had threatened the petitioner that she would take him to the court of law. 4. Further it is pointed out that the petitioner's wife has clearly stated even in Annexure-A1 FIS that she had threatened the petitioner that she would take him to the court of law. 4. Very crucially, the petitioner's counsel would further argue that the first incident is said to have happened in the year 2016 and that the petitioner's wife came to know of it on the same day and the delay in the lodging of the case as late as on 23.10.2019 is fatal to the prosecution case, for the simple reason that no explanation whatsoever has been given for the long delay of about more than three years in the lodging of the case. Further, most of the other incidents are stated to have come to the knowledge of the wife immediately thereafter and still she had never filed any complaint and she has bothered to file this complaint only on 23.10.2019, after the petitioner's re-marriage on 01.09.2019 and after registration of Annexure-A5 crime on 09.09.2019. Further it is pointed out that there are strong contradictions in the versions of the petitioner's wife as given in Annexure-A1 in comparison to the version given by the minor victim girl at Annexure-A2. It is also argued that going by the version of the minor victim girl, no serious offence of penetrative sexual assault is disclosed in the instant case and at best, the prosecution may argue that an offence of sexual assault could be made out and as the accused is stated to be a close relative, they may argue for a case of aggravated sexual assault (non-penetrative), as per Sec. 9 of the POCSO Act. 5. It is thus fervently pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the instant case is a typical case, which has been initiated only on account of the malicious and ulterior considerations of the wife of the accused on account of marital disputes. Further that, taking into account the fact that the petitioner has already suffered detention in this case for the last 30 days, this Court may order to release him on regular bail subject to any stringent conditions. 6. Further that, taking into account the fact that the petitioner has already suffered detention in this case for the last 30 days, this Court may order to release him on regular bail subject to any stringent conditions. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the plea for regular bail and has pointed out that the investigation is at the threshold stage and that the Investigating Agency would only act fairly and would examine all aspects of the matter and as the investigation is at the infancy stage and as there is a strong possibility of the petitioner intimidating and influencing the witnesses, more particularly, the petitioner's wife and the minor victim girl, who is his daughter, etc. this Court may not grant regular bail to the petitioner, etc. 7. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen that prima facie, there appears to be some significant contradictions in the versions given by the first informant (mother of the victim), as per Annexure-A1 FIS in comparison to the version given by the minor victim girl in Annexure- A2. The abovesaid contention raised by the petitioner that the allegations made out by the victim girl at Annexure-A2 may not disclose the serious offence of penetrative sexual assault, deserves serious consideration by the Investigating Agency. This Court need not get into any further aspects of the matter, as the matter is pending investigation and the learned Prosecutor has assured that the police would act fairly and if necessary, would also seek the guidance and advise of the Director General of Prosecution, after completion of the investigation, after completion of the investigation, etc. Further, the first incident, which is said to have happened about three years back, which is alleged by the mother of the victim, is not alleged by the victim. At any rate, it is indisputable that the said incident is said to have happened about three years back and it is the case of the mother that she immediately came to know of it on the same day and there does not have any credible explanation as to the reason for the long delay of more than three years in the lodging of the instant case. Some of the serious allegations made by the first informant (mother of the victim) at Annexure-A1, are in divergence and contradiction with the version given by the victim, more particularly, in Annexure-A2. This Court need not get into further details of the matters and this would gain careful consideration and evaluation by the Investigating Agency and the prosecution agency. Further it is seen that though the first informant would claim that she was always in the know of things at the various alleged incidents, which happened for the last three years. The instant crime has been set in motion only on 23.10.2019, which incidentally is immediately after the petitioner had conducted her second marriage on 01.09.2019 and after the registration of a previous crime as per Annexure-A5 on 09.09.2019 as aforestated. This Court is assessing these aspects only for the limited perspective of consideration of the plea for regular bail. The petitioner has also referred to Annexure-A4 agreement dated 27.02.2019 and about the alleged incidents which had happened in relation to that. 8. Taking into account all these aspects and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to take the view that the petitioner has made out a strong probable case that his further incarceration may not be necessary and he could be released on regular bail subject to stringent conditions. The learned Prosecutor has cautioned this Court that there is a strong possibility of the petitioner intimidating and influencing the witnesses, more particularly, his wife and the minor victim girl, who is his daughter, if he is let out on bail. Taking note of the abovesaid serious apprehension raised by the prosecution, it is ordered that the petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the police station, where the minor victim girl and her mother are residing, until conclusion of the trial process, subject to certain exceptions. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the victim's mother and the victim are residing separately from the residence of the petitioner. It is pointed out by the petitioner's counsel that earlier, the victim and the victim's mother and the other children were residing within the limits of the Binanipuram Police Station in Ernakulam district and now he had shifted his residence to Palakkad, which is his permanent place of residence. It is pointed out by the petitioner's counsel that earlier, the victim and the victim's mother and the other children were residing within the limits of the Binanipuram Police Station in Ernakulam district and now he had shifted his residence to Palakkad, which is his permanent place of residence. Further that, after separation, the petitioner's first wife and the victim girl are now residing in Thrissur district. Accordingly, it is pointed out by the petitioner that the petitioner and the victim are now residing within the limits of two different police stations. 9. On being queried as to the medical examination results, the learned Prosecutor has pointed out that the medical examination result does not disclose any injury or marks near the genital area of the victim. But that the swab and smear has been sent for chemical examination and further opinion of the doctor is awaited till the chemical examination report is obtained. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that even going by the allegations made by the first informant as well as the victim, there is no case of any contact of the male genital organ with the genital area of the victim girl and therefore, there is absolutely no necessity or relevance for sending swabs and smear for chemical examination and that itself may show that the investigation is not proceeding in the right and proper lines. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the medical examination has now revealed that there are no injuries or marks on the genital area of the victim girl, etc. 10. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and on his furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum each, both to the satisfaction of the competent court below concerned. However, the grant of bail will be subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner will report before the Investigating Officer concerned at any time between 9:00 a.m. and 2 p.m. on every 2nd and 4th Saturdays, for the next three months. Thereafter, the petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the said officer. However, the grant of bail will be subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner will report before the Investigating Officer concerned at any time between 9:00 a.m. and 2 p.m. on every 2nd and 4th Saturdays, for the next three months. Thereafter, the petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the said officer. (ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation process and shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the defacto complainant/victim, witnesses, nor shall tamper with the evidence. (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail. (iv) The petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the police station, within whose limits the victim girl is residing and studying, until the conclusion of the trial process in this case, except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Police in connection with the abovesaid crime or any other crimes or for attending any courts in relation to this case or for contacting lawyer/Advocate concerned. (v) However, in case, the petitioner has any genuine emergent and personal needs to visit the said area, he may do so only with the prior permission of the Investigating Officer. 11. In case, the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court concerned will stand hereby empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if required, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 12. With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.