JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. 1. The petitioner is the victim in the matter in SC No. 211 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (For the Trial of Cases Relating to Atrocities & Sexual Violence Against Women and Children), Ernakulam. The abovesaid Sessions Case arose out of Crime No. 1494/2017 of North Paravur Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs. 363, 376(h)(n)(i), 506(i) of the IPC and Secs. 3(a) r/w 4, Sec. 5(j)(ii),(l), (q) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST(POA) Act. The 5th respondent herein is the sole accused in the abovesaid case. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that when the victim who belongs to the Scheduled Caste was a minor aged about 17 years, she was repeatedly subjected to forced sexual intercourse and rape by the 5th respondent accused in a series of incidents and later she got pregnant and even thereafter the 5th respondent had subjected her to rape, etc. It is stated that the 5th respondent has extremely adverse criminal antecedents and he has been the accused in 9 other crimes, details of which are mentioned in paragraph No. 11 of the statement dated 3.4.2019 filed by the Investigating Officer in the present case. Due to medical complications, abortion of the foetus could not be performed on the petitioner and she had given birth to a girl child, etc. Now she is residing in North Paravur along with parents who belongs to the marginalised sections of the society. The victim now aged 19 years is educated upto Std. IX only. Her father is a coolie. 3. According to the petitioner, on 8.8.2018 when the Sessions Court had issued summons for the appearance of the accused and after the case was over, even in the Court premises the 5 th respondent accused had intimidated and threatened her that she should withdraw the case as otherwise her life would be at peril, and later when she had walked out, the 5th respondent followed her and intimidated and threatened her and he had blocked the petitioner and her sister then on a scooter. Immediately the petitioner had reported the incidents to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KELSA), Ernakulam, who in turn had reported the matter to the Ernakulam Central Police Station, thereby Crime No. 1743/2018 was registered by the Police Station by arraying the 5th respondent herein as accused therein for offences under Secs. 341, 506(i) of the IPC, as discernible from Ext.P-3. Thereafter the Prosecution has filed Crl. M.P. No. 289/2018 in the abovesaid S.C. No. 211/2018 before the abovesaid Sessions Court, seeking cancellation of bail granted to the 5th respondent for violation of bail conditions ordered in Ext.P-1 bail order dated 5.1.2018 issued in favour of the said accused. 4. The Sessions Court concerned has now issued the impugned Ext.P-5 order dated 27.10.2018, on the abovesaid application to cancel the bail of the 5th respondent. Two grounds are essentially raised by the Court below to reject the application to cancel the bail of the 5th respondent. Firstly that the incident of intimidation and threatening of victim is already subject matter of Ext.P-3 Crime No. 1743/2018 of Ernakulam Central Police Station, which requires investigation and finalisation in accordance with law and that therefore it may not be right and proper for that Court to get into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations raised by the victim in the said subsequent crime. Second ground is that the victim has already been granted police protection on the basis of Ext.P-4 order dated 10.8.2018 as per the orders passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 27517/2018 filed by the victim herein, in respect of her apprehension of threat and intimidation from the very same accused. 5. It is now evident that prior to the registration of the crime which led to the Sessions Case, the 5th respondent accused was involved in 9 other crimes, details of which are mentioned in the No. 11 of the statement filed by the Investigating Officer in this case. After the registration of the instant crime, which has led to the institution of the present case, the 5th respondent has been arrayed as accused in Ext.P-3 Crime No. 1743/2018 of Ernakulam Central Police Station, in relation to the incident of threat and intimidation of the victim herein. After the registration of the instant crime, which has led to the institution of the present case, the 5th respondent has been arrayed as accused in Ext.P-3 Crime No. 1743/2018 of Ernakulam Central Police Station, in relation to the incident of threat and intimidation of the victim herein. Now it is stated by the learned Prosecutor that the 5th respondent has now been implicated as accused in Crime No. 1218/2018 of Alathur Excise Range Office for offence under Sec. 20(b)(II)(B) of the NDPS Act, whereby 4 kilos of Ganga said to have been seized from him on 21.12.2018. 6. Sri. K.R. Vinod, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent accused has raised a preliminary objection that the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, as the specific remedy to be resorted in a case like this is one under Sec.482 of the CrPC as has been held in various decisions as in Jayamol C. Chacko vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2014 (4) KHC 550 : 2014 (4) KLJ 861 . After hearing both sides, it is seen that the decision in Jayamol C. Chacko's case (supra) was rendered by this Court in the context as to whether the remedy is to be resorted by filing an application before the High Court under Sec.439(2) of the CrPC or Sec.482 of the CrPC and this Court has held that in a case where the Sessions Court rejects the application for cancellation of bail for violation of the bail conditions, then the remedy of the aggrieved party is to file an application under Sec. 482 of the CrPC. There cannot be any quarrel with that proposition that in cases like this, where the Sessions Court rejects the plea for cancellation of bail on the ground of violation of bail conditions, then the remedy is to approach the High Court by filing an appropriate application under Sec.482 of the CrPC and in such cases, resort to the provisions contained in Sec. 439(2) is uncalled for. But that does not necessarily mean that resort to the extra ordinary discretionary remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is totally uncalled for or prohibited. Ordinarily the right remedy is to file an appropriate petition under Sec.482 of the CrPC. But that does not necessarily mean that resort to the extra ordinary discretionary remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is totally uncalled for or prohibited. Ordinarily the right remedy is to file an appropriate petition under Sec.482 of the CrPC. When such a specific remedy in terms of Sec.482 of the CrPC could be availed, then ordinarily resort to the extra ordinary constitutional remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may not really be called for. It is one thing to say in the facts of this case, that resort to Sec.482 of the CrPC is to be made and a totally different proposition to contend that availing the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is uncalled for. That apart, in a case like this, this Court can hold that the proceedings could be treated to be one that is Sec.482 of the CrPC even though it is formally filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The extra ordinary discretionary powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter of supervision and superintendence of subordinate courts, cannot be said to be closed in a case like the instant one. That apart, taking into consideration the fact that the victim in this case is a woman who belongs to Scheduled Caste and who is stated to have suffered the traumatic experience in the abovesaid crimes, and that too at a stage when she was a minor, this Court is inclined to entertain this petition and order that the application could be considered as one not only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India but also by resort to the powers conferred under Sec.482 of the CrPC. It is only to be appreciated that there could be cases where it will be more appropriate to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227, when egregious errors are seen committed by the subordinate courts. In such matters, where suo motu judicial action is required to correct such egregious errors of the subordinate courts, then it may be more appropriate to resort to the jurisdiction of Constitutional supervision and superintendence as per Art. 227 than the inherent statutory powers under Sec. 482 of CrPC. In the light of these aspects, the abovesaid objection raised by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent accused will stand overruled. 7. In the light of these aspects, the abovesaid objection raised by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent accused will stand overruled. 7. After hearing the learned advocates appearing for the petitioner victim, the 5th respondent accused and the respondent Prosecution, this Court is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Sessions Court in the impugned Ext.P-5 rejection order is illegal, improper and unreasonable for the following reasons. The Police has already registered FIR in Ext.P-3 Crime No. 1743/2018 of Ernakulam Central Police Station, against the 5th respondent herein as accused on the basis of the complaint of the victim herein that she had been subjected to intimidation, threat, etc by the accused on 8.8.2018 as stated herein above. The conditions imposed by the Court below in Ext.P-1 bail granted to the 5th respondent accused contained in paragraph No. 5 of the Ext.P-1 reads as follows: 1. He shall execute a bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. One of the surety must be a close relative like parents, uncle etc. 2. He shall report before the Investigating Officer on alternate days in between 10 am and 11 am until further orders. 3. He shall not enter North Paravur Police Station limit, except for complying condition no. 2. 4. He shall not influence or threaten the witnesses including the victim, in any manner. 5. He shall not involve in any other crime. 6. He shall surrender the Passport, if any or file affidavit within 3 days of release from the jail. 8. Condition No. 4 and 5 clearly postulates that the accused shall not influence or threaten the witnesses including the victim in any manner and further that he should not involve in any other crime. The victim has stated in the above complaint to the Police that the 5th respondent accused has threatened and intimidated her on the abovesaid day which has led to the registration of Ext.P-3 Crime No. 1743/2018 of Ernakulam Central Police Station. The victim has stated in the above complaint to the Police that the 5th respondent accused has threatened and intimidated her on the abovesaid day which has led to the registration of Ext.P-3 Crime No. 1743/2018 of Ernakulam Central Police Station. The main ground of rejection as per the impugned Ext.P-5 rejection order is that since crime in relation to the very same incident of threat and intimidation has already been registered, it may not be right and proper for the bail court to consider the correctness or otherwise of those allegations as that may primarily fall within the province and domain of the trial court which is to consider the matter in relation of Ext.P-3 crime. The said ground of rejection, is to say the least illegal and unreasonable. If the said ground is sustained then in no case of this nature, can the bail be cancelled on the ground of violation of bail conditions in the matter of threat and intimidation of witnesses or victim by the accused. Invariably in such cases, the victim or the witnesses subjected to threat or intimidation might not only complain to the prosecution agency in relation to the bail order concerned but also to the police authority concerned. Merely because an FIR is registered by the Police in relation to the abovesaid incident, is no ground for the bail Court to say that it has to keep its hands off and should be a silent spectator and that the truth or otherwise of the allegations of threat and intimidation of the victim and the witnesses is to be determined by the Trial Court which is in seisin of the said subsequent crime. True that in a case like that the accused could be convicted for a criminal offence emanating from the said allegations only on the basis of the trial in such proceedings and that too on the basis of the higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 9. True that in a case like that the accused could be convicted for a criminal offence emanating from the said allegations only on the basis of the trial in such proceedings and that too on the basis of the higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 9. But in a case where the victim or the witnesses specifically complains of threat and intimidation and the said aspects are projected either by victim or by the prosecution before the bail court through an application as referred to in Ext.P-5, then it is bounden duty of the bail court to consider the correctness or otherwise of the allegations in a summary manner after affording an opportunity of being heard to the prosecution as well as to the affected accused concerned whose bail is ought to be cancelled and if possible to the victim as well, in a case like this. In such process of enquiry, the bail court could call for the records if any in relation to those allegations and if a separate crime has been registered in that regard, the records in those crimes should also be perused by the bail court in order to make an enquiry in a summary manner as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations therein, and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the prosecution, accused and the victim, the bail court is expected to discharge its solemn duty and function to decide on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations in such a summary manner and the evidentiary assessment thereof could be on the basis of the overall attendant circumstances as well as the attendant balance of probabilities of the case. Based on such a process, the bail court is obliged to take a decision whether the bail conditions have been so violated and if it is so found that the bail conditions has been violated then it is the duty of the bail court to cancel the bail, but certainly after hearing the affected party as aforestated. So also, if the said enquiry process reveals that the truth of the abovesaid allegations has not been established in a convincing manner in such enquiry process, then the bail court is to dismiss the application to cancel the bail. So also, if the said enquiry process reveals that the truth of the abovesaid allegations has not been established in a convincing manner in such enquiry process, then the bail court is to dismiss the application to cancel the bail. But the bail court cannot evade from the responsibility by taking up the specious plea that since the very allegations also form subject matter of a distinct crime then the truth or otherwise of the allegations is to be decided by the criminal court which is seisin of that crime through the process of finalisation of said impugned criminal proceedings by the conduct and completion of trial therein. Merely because the bail court takes a decision to cancel the bail of the accused, in the former case will not in any manner affect or trammel the criminal proceedings in respect of the distinct crime which has been separately registered and the issue as to whether the accused is to be convicted for the said crime is to be separately adjudged and decided in the separate criminal proceedings thereof based on the superior standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. So even if the bail court finds that the allegations of threat and intimidation are found to be true in the proceedings for cancellation of bail of the former crime, will not in any manner fetter or influence the decision making process in respect of the trial in relation to the latter crime. The Sessions Court as per the impugned order has missed this crucial aspect of the matter and has proceeded mechanically and in the result that the bail court has evaded from it solemn responsibility to decide on this crucial issue as aforestated, which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. 10. Secondly the observation made by the Sessions Court in the impugned Ext.P-5 rejection order that the victim could secure a police protection order on the basis of an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, etc, is also not a valid ground to reject the application for cancellation of bail. 10. Secondly the observation made by the Sessions Court in the impugned Ext.P-5 rejection order that the victim could secure a police protection order on the basis of an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, etc, is also not a valid ground to reject the application for cancellation of bail. Merely because the victim has been successfully able to secure an order of police protection from the Division Bench of the High Court in respect of the apprehension of threat and intimidation by the very same accused, is no ground to say that her problems are solved and that the application for cancellation of bail need not be adjudged or evaluated by the bail court. The said approach is also highly illegal and perverse. 11. There is yet another important dimension of the matter which has been totally missed by the learned Sessions Court. The petitioner victim has urged violation of condition No. 4 and 5 of Ext.P-1 bail order. Condition No. 4 is in relation to threatening or influencing of witnesses. Condition No. 5 is that the accused shall not involve in any other crime. In the facts of the instant case, the factual aspect based on the incident of threat and intimidation alleged by the victim will make out a case not only in respect of Condition No. 4 but also in respect of Condition No. 5. In respect of Condition No. 5 the only objective criteria that is to be determined by the bail court is as to whether the accused has got himself involved in any other crime subject to the grant of the bail order. That is a purely objective task to be done by the bail Court after hearing the parties. In that process the bail court need not get into any vexed issues as to whether or not the findings regarding the threatening and intimidation of the witness, etc in any manner will affect the trial in respect of the separate crime registered in that regard. That crucial aspect of the matter has been totally lost sight of by the learned Sessions Court in the impugned order. That crucial aspect of the matter has been totally lost sight of by the learned Sessions Court in the impugned order. It is now submitted by the learned Prosecutor that the Prosecution has already filed a separate application before the court below concerned taking up the plea that the bail granted to the accused as per Ext.P-1 bail order should be cancelled as he has not got himself involved in the abovesaid NDPS case on 21.12.2018 and the said application has been filed by the Prosecution as Crl. M.P. No. 308/2019 in the abovesaid S.C. No. 211/2018 on the file of the Special Sessions Court for POCSO Cases, Ernakulam. It is now learned that the Crl. M.P. No. 308/2019 in the abovesaid S.C. No. 211/2018 was taken up for consideration today and has been adjourned to tomorrow. If as a matter of fact, the learned Prosecutor appearing before the Court below has apprised the Court below about the pendency of the present OP (Crl) before this Court, this Court is now not in a position to know the exact reasons as to why the Court below concerned has adjourned the case to tomorrow without waiting for orders from this Court in the present OP (Crl). 12. For these reasonings, it is only to be held that the impugned Ext.P-5 rejection order is vitiated by illegality impropriety and perversity. 13. Paragraph 11 of the statement dated 3.4.2019 filed by the Investigating Officer reads as follows: “11. It is also submitted that the petitioner herein was also arrayed as accused in verity crimes in Kochi city limits details are given below (i) Cr. No. 202/11 U/s 27(b) of NDPS Act of Kalamassery PS (ii) Cr. No. 2094/11 U/s 341,323,427 & 34 IPC of Kalamassery PS (iii) Cr. No. 2131/13 U/s 394 IPC of Kalamassery PS (iv) Cr. No. 2341/13 U/s 461, 380 IPC of Kalamassery PS vs. Cr. No. 225/14 U/s 107 CrPC of Kalamassery PS (vi) Cr. No. 903/15 U/s 452, 354, 323 & 34 IPC of Kalamassery PS (vii) Cr. No. 1576/16 U/s 151 CrPC of Kalamassery PS (viii) Cr. No. 1626/15 U/s 380 & 34 IPC of Kadavanthara PS (ix) Cr. No. 2341/13 U/s 461, 380 IPC of Kalamassery PS vs. Cr. No. 225/14 U/s 107 CrPC of Kalamassery PS (vi) Cr. No. 903/15 U/s 452, 354, 323 & 34 IPC of Kalamassery PS (vii) Cr. No. 1576/16 U/s 151 CrPC of Kalamassery PS (viii) Cr. No. 1626/15 U/s 380 & 34 IPC of Kadavanthara PS (ix) Cr. No. 409/16 U/s 7 R/w 8 of POCSO Act of Palarivattom PS” It is now pointed out by the Prosecutor that the abovesaid 9 cases were registered even before the registration of the instant crime which led to the present Sessions case. Thereafter Ext.P-3 Crime No. 1743/2018 of Ernakulam Central Police Station was registered against the accused in relation to the present allegations of threat and intimidation caused to the present victim by the abovesaid accused. Still later the accused has got himself implicated in Crime No. 12/2018 of Excise Range, Alathur for the abovesaid NDPS offence on 21.12.2018. So as of now there are about 12 cases including the present sessions case pending as criminal proceedings against the very same 5th respondent accused. After the rendering of Ext.P-1 bail order dated 5.1.2018, it appears that the 5th respondent accused has got himself involved in the abovesaid Ext.P-3 crime as well as Crime No. 12/2018 of Excise Range, Alathur in respect of the NDPS offence which has been registered on 21.12.2018. 14. In the light of the abovesaid aspects it is ordered that the upshot of the above discussion is that the matter in Ext.P-5 Crl. M.P. No. 289/2018 requires serious reconsideration at the hands of the Court below concerned. Accordingly the impugned Ext.P-5 order will stand set aside and the matter in Crl. M.P. No. 289/2018 in S.C. No. 211/2018 will stand remitted for consideration of the Court below concerned for decision afresh, after hearing all the parties. The Court below concerned will take up the matter in the present Crl. M.P. No. 289/2018 as well as Crl. M.P. No. 308/2019 and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the prosecution, the accused as well as the victim, will pass orders in those applications, in accordance with law and in the light of the abovesaid observations given by this Court herein above. Orders in this regard should be duly rendered by the Court below concerned within 3 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 15. Orders in this regard should be duly rendered by the Court below concerned within 3 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 15. It has to be borne in mind by all stake holders who are dealing with cases under the POCSO Act, that the legal regimes envisaged by the framing of the POCSO Act by the Parliament, requires a fine tuned approach in dealing with such cases not only in the enforcement of law, but also by the prosecution as well as by the Courts. A mere glance of the preamble of the POCSO Act would make it clear that the Parliament has enacted the said Act to protect children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harrassment, pornography and provide for Special Court for Trial of Sexual Offences and for matters connected therewith. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children ratified by India on 11.12.1992, requires the State Parties to undertake all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent (a) the inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity; (b) the exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices and (c) the exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials. It has been observed that the data collected by the National Crime Records Bureau shows that there has been increase in cases of sexual offences against children and this has been corroborated by various other studies conducted by various agencies attached to the Central Government and State Governments. Article 15 of the Constitution of India confers powers upon the State to make special provision for children and Article 39 provides that the State shall in particular direct its police towards securing that the tender age of children are not abused and their childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and they are given facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. These parameters has to be clearly borne in mind by all stake holders who are discharging their duties and functions in the enforcement of the law, prosecution agency and more so by the Courts concerned. The Courts should be sensitive to the traumatizing experiences suffered by children who are victims of such perverted sexual offences. These parameters has to be clearly borne in mind by all stake holders who are discharging their duties and functions in the enforcement of the law, prosecution agency and more so by the Courts concerned. The Courts should be sensitive to the traumatizing experiences suffered by children who are victims of such perverted sexual offences. The bail courts owe a duty to the society and community at large to ensure that the rights and interests of the victims are effectively protected and if it found that bail conditions are violated by the accused, and in cases where such violation has detrimentally affected the rights of the victim child, then the bail court will have to rise up to the occasion to ensure not only that the majesty of law is upheld, so as to deal with the alleged violations of the conditions of the bail by the accused, but also to ensure that confidence is instilled in the victim children about the efficacy of the legal system. 16. Before parting with this case, it has to be mentioned that it is now brought to the notice of this Court that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner victim that he is indeed acting pro bono, that the plight of the victim girl is indeed highly tragic and that she has studied upto Class IX only and that in view of the deplorable economic conditions of her parents, she finds it extremely difficult to pull on with her life. In view of the tragic events that has occurred, this Court would venture to suggest that the State Government may seriously consider whether some good training facility and employment opportunity could be extended to the petitioner victim, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community so that she could be equipped with skills to gain employability and the State Government may also seriously consider whether she could be accommodated in some gainful employment. The KELSA authorities are also requested to examine the feasibility of accommodating the petitioner in some governmental or private training centres so that her skills could be upgraded for gaining employability. The KELSA authorities are also requested to examine the feasibility of accommodating the petitioner in some governmental or private training centres so that her skills could be upgraded for gaining employability. This Court would venture to suggest to the Director General of Prosecution and the KELSA to take up these matters with the competent authorities of the State Government to examine whether any action in this regard would be feasible, so that the plight of the petitioner victim who belongs to Scheduled Caste could be alleviated to some extent. The KELSA authorities may also seriously examine whether interim compensation could be considered in the petitioner's case as per the scheme for compensation. The Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the Director, KELSA, for necessary information and further action. 17. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition (Criminal) will stand finally disposed of.