JUDGMENT a. K. Menon, J. - The applicant seeks to be enlarged on bail in a FIR No.RC-04(S)/2021/CBI/SC/III/ND under Section 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences act ( POCSO act) and under Section 67-B of the Information and Technology act, 2000. Mr. Muley, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted at the outset that the applicant has been in custody since about 9 months and the investigation is complete. The chargesheet has been filed and considering the charges framed there will be no justification in his continued custody. 2. Mr. Muley submitted that the applicant was employed as a Chef in a hotel in Goa since 2013-14 and the complainant apparently receive information that the applicant was allegedly involved with other unknown persons in photographing children engaged in sexual acts and publishing/transmitting sale of obscene material over the internet via the dark web and other social media platforms. Mr. Muley, submits that prior to filing of the chargesheet the complainant's officials along with local police at Nizampur Police Station, Bhiwandi visited the applicant resident at 2.30p.m on 24.6.2021 and informed his father that a case has been registered by the CBI and that the applicant was required for investigation. 3. Initially notice under Section 41a of the Cr.P.C. was issued to the applicant at about 6.00p.m on 24.6.2021 which was received by the father of the applicant. The applicant being directed to appear before the Deputy Superintendent of police, at 6.00p.m on 24.6.2022 at CBI, Camp office, Nariman point Mumbai. The CBI officials apparently asked the father of the applicant to given him some money and clothes when he attends CBI Camp office. The allegation is that no station diary entry was made recording this position including by the local police. On 25.6.2021 at 12.15 p.m the applicant's father and uncle visited the camp office. The applicant was present there and they interacted with him for about 10 minutes duly monitored by CCTV camera. The applicant father was informed that the applicant would be released in some time but he was not so released. Further visits were permitted on 27.6.2021 and 28.6.2021. 4. The CBI members conducted a search in the house of the applicant seized one hard drive, external drive, pen drive and compact disk -sans a search warrant. The applicant father was informed that the applicant would be released in some time but he was not so released. Further visits were permitted on 27.6.2021 and 28.6.2021. 4. The CBI members conducted a search in the house of the applicant seized one hard drive, external drive, pen drive and compact disk -sans a search warrant. On 30.6.2021, the applicant's father filed a habeas corpus writ petition in the Bombay High Court but the applicant was then brought to Panaji and shown as arrested here. 5. On 6.7.2021, in his remand application under Sections 4,6,8, 10, 12, 15 of the POCSO act were added in addition to Section 14 and Section 67-B of the Information and Technology act. Remand was initially given for 10 days extended by a further 4 days but the chargesheet levied charges only under Sections 12 and 15 along with Section 67 B of the IT act. 6. The applicant thereafter filed a bail application before the Special Court POCSO act at Panaji seeking to be enlarged on bail. The Special Court rejected the bail application on 26.11.2021. Thereafter the applicant through his advocate applied under Section 207 of CR.P.C for being provided with copies of the complaint, chargesheet, statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.p.C. and all medical examination reports. Mr. Muley makes a grievance that till date of filing the bail application, the accused had not received the documents requested. Mr. Muley, therefore submitted that after 9 months of custody and filing of the chargesheet, there is no reason now for the applicant to be detained in jail. Sections 4,6,8 and 10 were dropped since the chargesheet has pressed charges under Section 12 and 15 along with Section 67 B of the IT act. Even under Section 15, Mr. Muley submitted that there is no case made out that the applicant had utilised any of the material for commercial purposes and hence no case was made out under Section 15(3) either. He also submitted that there is no evidence that the applicant was in possession and or storing pornographic material for the purpose of transmitting or distributing the same. He therefore, submitted that the applicant be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions that may be imposed. 7. In the course of his submissions, Mr. He also submitted that there is no evidence that the applicant was in possession and or storing pornographic material for the purpose of transmitting or distributing the same. He therefore, submitted that the applicant be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions that may be imposed. 7. In the course of his submissions, Mr. Muley relied upon an extract of final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., and invited my attention to the fact that there was no evidence that the so called modus operandi. He has taken me through the statements recorded of several witnesses and submitted that there is no eye witness account at all. He submits that statements were made on the basis of conjectures. 8. Mr. Muley has also relied upon decision in the case Miss Harsh Sawhney Vs Union Territory (Chandigarh admn.) (1978) 2 SCC 365 , the principles bearing on grant or refusal of bail set out in Gurucharan Singh and ors. Vs State (Delhi administration) 1978 (1) SCC 118 . He also relied upon the decision of Moideenkuttyp P. Vs State of Kerala, 2015 SCC online 10120 . 9. Lastly, Mr. Muley relied upon decision of Khushiram Ramkumar Paul Vs State of Maharashtra, 2017 SCC online Bom. 5266 and submitted that considering the nature of the offence in that case being one under Section 12 of the POCSO act, the bail application was allowed on conditions as set out in that order. 10. Mr. P. Faldessai, learned addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents has opposed the bail application and has submitted that the application ought not to be allowed. He relied on the reply dated 22.3.2022 filed by the Inspector of Police, CBI SC III New Delhi. It is submitted that the applicant is involved in immoral practices including abuse of children and minor photographing them and video-graphing them during obscene acts and publishing and transmitting the obscene material over the internet, engaging in chats with other persons on the subject and like offences. That these activities were being carried out at Bhiwandi, Mumbai, Maharashtra and Goa. My attention was invited to fact that the applicant was using identified mobile numbers and email IDs for publication and transmission of such obscene material over the internet and dark web. 11. Mr. Faldessai, reiterated the case that pen drive holds 604 images and that the chargesheet has been filed on 28.9.2021. My attention was invited to fact that the applicant was using identified mobile numbers and email IDs for publication and transmission of such obscene material over the internet and dark web. 11. Mr. Faldessai, reiterated the case that pen drive holds 604 images and that the chargesheet has been filed on 28.9.2021. Further evidence is being collected both oral and documentary. There are other offences in respect of which investigation is under way and in respect of which the applicant has not yet been chargesheeted. The Investigation he submitted, also involves another foreign national and investigation in that respect are continuing under Section 178 of Cr.P.C. 12. It is contended by Mr. Faldessai that the applicant is a habitual offender and if released on bail he is likely to commit further offences. That he is a paedophile and had been assessed by all India Institute of Medical Science Delhi which has opined on 3.9.2021 that apart from paedophilia he is not suffering from any psychiatric disorders. That report was issued after medical examination Psychiatric and Psychological evaluation of the applicant. 13. The impression gathered reveals that apart from paedophilia he is not suffering from any psychiatric disorders. Mr. Faldessai submitted that if the accused is released on bail at this stage further investigation will be hampered. My attention is being invited to certain email exchanges and Whats app chats which were promptly opposed by Mr. Muley who submitted that Whats app chats do not have evidentiary value. Mr. Faldessai, submitted that there are also statements made by persons known to the applicant confirming that his personality appears to be that of a paedophile. 14. From the material placed before me by the prosecution, I find that there are several statements attributed to the person some of whom were acquainted with the applicant including which suggest that deponent came across imaged uploaded under a pseudonym which contained links for pornographic videos including those of children. Some of these links indicate that they were being posted by the accused through drop boxes that he has access to. The prosecution has also placed reliance upon a statement of program coordinator part of three members team assisting CBI during investigation and this investigation reveals that the applicant has access to the drop box services in question and the applicant is accessing the me through a different user and email ID. The prosecution has also placed reliance upon a statement of program coordinator part of three members team assisting CBI during investigation and this investigation reveals that the applicant has access to the drop box services in question and the applicant is accessing the me through a different user and email ID. These aspects come to the light and got confirmed in the presence of the applicant and independent witnesses. In addition Mr. Faldessai has offered to present before the Court certain statements in a sealed envelope which is said to be part of the ongoing further investigation. I had occasion to peruse these statements as well. Reliance is placed on statement stated to have been obtained in the presence of independent witnesses. 15. These statements in my view may not be very material today for issue at hand namely grant of bail. The prosecution has alleged that the applicant was using his identified mobile number and that several email IDs for the aforesaid purposes. The applicant allegedly had access to various cloud based storage websites where he would store such obscene material. The complainant is believed to have recovered a pen drive in which three folders contained 604 images including obscene images pertaining to children aged between 5 to 15 years and that the applicant was actively engaged in transmission and sharing of such material. My attention has been invited to one of the statements dated 21.7.2021 and the deponent has stated that the applicant was very shy person, hardly used to talk to "elder persons" and he used to interact with the persons who is younger to him. He had close bonding with one person presumably in the hotel. 16. On the other hand, an other statement recorded on the same day reveals that he had not seen the applicant engaged in any illegal activities with nephew of the deponent who was staying with him. The third statement reveals that he had never seen the applicant meeting with any family members without his presence or engaged in any untoward activity or behaviour with the family members. 17. On assessment of the material on record, I find that there are no allegations of sexual assault or any aggressive assault, hence there is no question of applying provisions of Sections 8 or 10 which provides for punishment of aggravated sexual assault. 17. On assessment of the material on record, I find that there are no allegations of sexual assault or any aggressive assault, hence there is no question of applying provisions of Sections 8 or 10 which provides for punishment of aggravated sexual assault. The sections which are now being pressed into service are punishment for sexual harassment and for storage and possession of pornographic material involving children. In a case of this nature with no criminal antecedents and having undergone custody till date the petitioner can be enlarged on bail under strict conditions. The applicant cannot be continued to be incarcerated indefinitely. 18. One of the principal reasons why continued custody of the applicant being sought is that email ID and passwords to these email Ids/drop box/drop boxes are known to the accused and if released on bail he may once against start using the same and may create new email ID and may involve in doing the same. He may also delete data from email accounts. These are the aspects which prosecution will take into account and all necessary evidence that pertaining to electronic evidence can be conveniently collected including those required for the purpose of Section 85 B and 88 a of the Evidence act and the relevant provisions of the Information and technology act. 2000. Furthermore the contention that the applicant, if released may use email Ids may not be material today. Upon his release the applicant could hypothetically, speaking register fresh email IDs. Steps can be taken to prevent such activities by alerting the concerned agencies of the coordinates of the applicant required for the purpose of creating fresh email addresses such a mobile telephone number, alternate email id etc. The likelihood of the applicant using the same email addresses cannot however be ruled out and the prosecution is expected to adopt suitable measures to ensure that necessary evidence is protected in accordance with law. 19. While having considered the entire set of facts and stage of investigation and his continued custody, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on strict conditions. 20. In view of the above, I find no reason for the applicant to be continued to be detained in custody and that I pass the following order:- (i) The applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 20. In view of the above, I find no reason for the applicant to be continued to be detained in custody and that I pass the following order:- (i) The applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. (ii) The applicant shall not contact any of the witneses or interfere with further investigation or alter the settings of his email accounts. (iii) If the applicant proposes to use an alternate email account he shall intimate trial court of such proposed use. (iv) The applicant shall disclose his permanent residential address as set out in his KYC documents and furnish copy of the adhaar Card, Electoral Photo Identity Card. (v) The applicant shall surrender his passport before the trial Court upon his release. (vi) The applicant shall disclose the name(s) and telephone number(s) of his immediate family members. He shall not travel beyond the State of Maharashtra and Goa without prior permission of the trial Court. (vii) The applicant shall report to Bhiwandi Police Station once a week on Saturday at 9.00 am. (viii) The applicant shall not apply or use any mobile number other than that he is presently using namely mobile no. 9823056416. (ix) Needless to mention that violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations made in the order are for the limited purpose of bail and the trial Court shall proceed without being influenced by any of these observations. 21. application stands disposed of.