JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. Learned HCGP has not filed any statement of objections, but has orally opposed the petition. Respondent No.2 is duly served and unrepresented. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is laid against the petitioner and other accused under sections 7, 8, 9(f), 9(l), 9(m), 10, 21(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act'). Petitioner is shown as accused No.1 in the charge sheet. 2. The application filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 for grant of bail has been dismissed by the Trial court by its order dated 24.10.2019. It is submitted that subsequently accused No.2 is enlarged on bail. The present petition is filed by accused No.1 for grant of bail under section 439 IPC. 3. The FIR was registered against the petitioner and others based on the complaint lodged by one Smt.Radha, Social Worker associated with a NGO by name 'APSA Collaboration Organization'. A reading of the complaint indicates that during the workshop conducted by her to create awareness among the children about the sexual harassment, she came to know that the petitioner herein was inappropriately touching the body of girl students studying in V Standard. According to her, she approached the parents of the victim girls and having confirmed that the petitioner has been involved in committing sexual offences against students, filed the complaint. The investigation was taken up. In the course of investigation, the petitioner herein was arrested and has been remanded to judicial custody. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the alleged offences. The material collected by the Investigating Agency does not prima facie make out the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. There was no complaint by the parents or the students. The material produced before the Court indicates that a video was taken by the complainant during interaction with the students, but the same has been suppressed by the prosecution and a false case has been foisted against the petitioner based on the statements which have been created on tutoring and prompting the students at the behest of complainant. It is the submission of the learned counsel that in any case, investigation has been completed and therefore, custody of the petitioner is not necessary. Petitioner is aged more than 61 years. It is the submission of the learned counsel that in any case, investigation has been completed and therefore, custody of the petitioner is not necessary. Petitioner is aged more than 61 years. The allegations made against the petitioner, on the face of it, appear unbelievable. He has been made a victim of a larger ploy to malign the name of the school and thus, seeks for his release on bail on such terms found appropriate by this Court. 5. The application is opposed by learned HCGP contending that the material collected by the Investigating Agency prima facie make out the ingredients of the alleged offences. The statements of the victim girls recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., confirms that the petitioner was involved in the alleged offence and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. 6. On considering the rival submissions and on going through the material on record, it is seen that there were no allegations by any of the students either against the petitioner or against school authorities with regard to the alleged sexual assault until the complainant was permitted to conduct workshop in the school. The material produced before the Court indicate that while creating awareness among girl students about good touch and bad touch, some students appear to have narrated that they had faced such unpleasant situations in the school. But the alleged interaction which is stated to have been recorded by the complainant is not the part of the charge sheet, making it evident that the earliest version is suppressed. 7. In this context, perusal of the statement of one Varalakshmi, a tuition teacher who is stated to have scribed the complaint on behalf of one of the students indicates that the child did not disclose the name of the teacher who committed sexual assault on her and therefore, she left the name blank and scribed the complaint with regard to the alleged sexual assault on the child. This statement goes to show that the child did not make any specific allegations against the accused even after she was goaded to file the complaint. Contrary to this, her parents have stated that the child complained to them alleging that the petitioner herein was touching her inappropriately. This indicates that deliberate effort has been made to trump-up evidence against the petitioner/accused No.1 at the instance of the complainant. Contrary to this, her parents have stated that the child complained to them alleging that the petitioner herein was touching her inappropriately. This indicates that deliberate effort has been made to trump-up evidence against the petitioner/accused No.1 at the instance of the complainant. The records clearly indicate that the evidence has been created only after lodging of the complaint. 8. I have also perused the statements of the victim girls recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. All the students have given stereotype statements and have uniformly stated that the petitioner has been sexually assaulting 'them'. None of the students have narrated any specific instance nor have they stated that the alleged sexual act was committed on them individually. That apart, according to the students, the alleged acts were committed in the open class in the presence of all other students which on the face of it appears to be highly implausible and unbelievable. It is also worth to note that even though the allegations of sexual assault are directed only against accused No.1, even the accused No.2 the wife of accused No.1 who was working in the Office as a Treasurer and other school authorities who had no knowledge of the alleged incident until the arrival of the complainant to the scene, are also implicated as co-accused indicating that in a well designed ploy, the complainant was sent to the school on the guise of creating awareness among the children. It is not the case of the complainant that she has been routinely visiting all schools creating awareness among school children. There is no explanation by the prosecution as to why particular school was singled out to create awareness when it is the case of the prosecution that the complaint was received by the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. In the said complaint, it is stated that the complainant visited the school at the instance of the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. But no material has been produced to show that there was any such direction to the complainant from the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. In any case, the evidence having been trumped up only after the visit of the complainant to the school on her prompting and direction the veracity and genuineness of this evidence is required to be established during trial. 9. In any case, the evidence having been trumped up only after the visit of the complainant to the school on her prompting and direction the veracity and genuineness of this evidence is required to be established during trial. 9. Having regard to the nature of the evidence relied on by the prosecution, there cannot be any possibility of petitioner tampering with the above evidence. Petitioner is a senior citizen. His custody is not necessary either for the purpose of further investigation or for the purpose of trial. It is stated that he is already suspended from service. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any impediment for enlarging the petitioner on bail. I am conscious of the fact that cases of victims of sexual abuse have to be dealt with atmost sensitivity considering the vulnerability of the victims. But while dealing with the application for bail, consideration that should weigh with the court are entirely different. Viewed in that manner, the material on record does not indicate that the children had any traumatic experience of sexual abuse in the class earlier to the awareness created by the complainant. This is not a case where the school children had sought for medical or psychological intervention because of any trauma or emotional problem on account of the alleged sexual abuse by the petitioner. The case of the prosecution is that only when the children were made aware by the NGO that the acts of touching them inappropriately amounted to sexual abuse, the school children appear to have come up with the allegations that the accused was touching their breast/chest, inserting wirestick inside the shirt from behind. According to the prosecution, all these incidents had taken place in the open class and not in any secluded area. The statements of the children do not indicate that the alleged acts were committed with any sexual intent. There are no allegations of any lure, inducement, threat, coercion or any favoritism by the petitioner which is an essential concomitant of the offences of sexual assault. Having regard to the material on record, the prosecution has to go a long way to establish the sexual intent on the part of the petitioner. That apart, the offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than five years. Having regard to the material on record, the prosecution has to go a long way to establish the sexual intent on the part of the petitioner. That apart, the offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than five years. As the investigation is completed and there is no apprehension of the petitioner tampering with the evidence, the custody of the petitioner is not required to be extended as a substitute for punishment. For all the above reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed with the following conditions:- a) Petitioner/accused No.1 Sri.Samuel Chinniahn is ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. b) He shall appear before the court as and when required. c) He shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner. d) He shall not get involved in similar offences. e) He shall not leave the territorial limits of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.