JUDGMENT : K. HARIPAL, J. 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter referred to as the Act, challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Crl. M.C. No. 2505/2020. The appellant is the third accused in Crime No. 460/2020 of Kalamassery Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 370, 354, 354A(2), 376(2)(h), (k), (l), (n), 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 6 r/w. 5(k)(l)(p) (q), Section 10 r/w. 9(k)(l)(p)(q), Section 8 r/w. 7 of POCSO Act 2012, Section 79 JJ Act, 2015 and Section 3(1)(w)(i), 2(v)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act (Amendment 2015). 2. The allegation against the third accused is that he had facilitated the transport of the victim minor girl, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community from her residence in Madhya Pradesh, brought her to Kerala and facilitated her sexual exploitation. Consequent to such acts, the first accused abused her sexually and she became pregnant. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Special Public Prosecutor. 4. It is evident from the pleadings and records made available before court that the victim girl hails from Madhya Pradesh; the allegation against the appellant/the third accused is that he had facilitated the girl for trafficking from Madhya Pradesh. But materials could not be brought out to say that he is instrumental in the movement of the girl from Madhya Pradesh to Kerala or had anyway assisted the first accused in the inter- State trafficking of the girl. 5. Even though notice was sent to the victim as provided under sub-section (5) of Section 15A of the Act, no one has entered appearance for her and her version could not be gathered. Even though the allegation against accused 1 and 2 are very serious, at least at this stage, the allegation against the appellant/third accused cannot be taken on par with them. Allegations against him are comparatively light. 6. Considering all the aspects and also the report of the Investigating Officer, it does not seem that this is a case requiring custodial interrogation of the appellant/third accused. Therefore, I am convinced that this a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. 7. Allegations against him are comparatively light. 6. Considering all the aspects and also the report of the Investigating Officer, it does not seem that this is a case requiring custodial interrogation of the appellant/third accused. Therefore, I am convinced that this a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. 7. The Criminal Appeal is allowed subject to the following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and will make himself available for interrogation. (ii) In the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. (iii) He shall co-operate with investigation, shall not try to contact or influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence. (iv) He shall not involve himself in any crime during the period on bail. (v) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer/court as and when required. (vi) He shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and the Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic. (vii) If any of the above conditions are violated by the appellant, the jurisdictional court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail, in accordance with law. 8. The Criminal Appeal is allowed, as above.