“‘If Facts Are Correct, It Is A Shame To The Profession’: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Plea of Lawyer Accused in Minor’s Sexual Assault Case”
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Kerala High Court has dismissed an anticipatory bail plea filed by a lawyer accused of committing multiple offences involving a minor, including aggravated sexual assault. The single-judge Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan refused to grant relief, holding that a prima facie case has been established against the petitioner and that the matter had progressed “beyond the stage of prima facie.” The court invoked Section 482(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which restricts the grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving serious sexual offences.
The court further directed that the reports submitted by the Victim Rights Centre (KeLSA) and the counselling report be sealed and retained on record for potential use in any future bail applications.
The petitioner, a practicing advocate, was named as the accused in Crime No. 1492/2024 of Aranmula Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. According to the materials presented, the petitioner faces charges under Sections 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n), 376(3), 377, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 75 and 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and multiple provisions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
The victim, a minor girl and Plus-2 student, recorded her statement before Konni Police Station on 14 December 2024. She alleged that in 2022, while studying in the 9th standard, she had accompanied her aunt and cousins to a hotel where the petitioner was also present. The petitioner allegedly provided her alcohol and later, in the absence of others, locked the room and sexually assaulted her. The statement records that the next morning, the victim noticed bleeding and other injuries. The victim further alleged that subsequent incidents of sexual assault were committed by the petitioner with the knowledge of her aunt.
The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate P. Vijayabhanu, contended that the case was fabricated and motivated by financial interests. The defense submitted that the victim had previously lodged a complaint against another individual who was later acquitted after the victim turned hostile. The petitioner’s counsel argued that denying bail would irreparably damage the petitioner’s professional standing and career. The defense also pointed to inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and submitted that this was a fit case for anticipatory bail.
The prosecution, represented by Senior Public Prosecutor K.A. Noushad, opposed the application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the case diary contained detailed accounts supporting the allegations and that the petitioner had played a role in mediating a financial settlement in a prior case involving the same victim. The prosecution further submitted that anticipatory bail is barred under Section 482(4) of BNSS, as the petitioner faces charges under Section 376(3) IPC.
In addition, Adv. Parvathi A. Menon, Project Coordinator of the Victim Rights Centre (KeLSA), submitted a report after interacting with the victim. Smt. Norhas Antony, a psychologist from the Family Counselling Center, HCLSE, Kerala, also submitted a counselling report.
The petitioner’s counsel also submitted a pen drive allegedly containing the victim’s statement, which the court recorded was not examined at this stage.
The court considered the preliminary objection regarding the bar under Section 482(4) of BNSS. Justice Kunhikrishnan observed that the bar would apply unless the allegations were “patently false or motivated and no prima facie materials exist warranting the arrest of the accused.” The court cited prior Kerala High Court judgments including XXX v. State of Kerala [2023 (6) KHC 158] and K.R. Jayachandran v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC Online 1527], where similar principles were applied.
After perusing the materials on record, the court recorded, “after going through the entire Case Diary, the report submitted by the Project Coordinator and the counselling report, I am of the considered opinion that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and it can be stated that it has progressed beyond the stage of prima facie.”
The court noted that the victim’s statements and the reports submitted by the Project Coordinator and the psychologist were consistent and credible. Referring to the victim’s background, the court recorded that the Project Coordinator observed that the victim belonged to a dysfunctional family and lacked proper guidance, making it challenging for her to resist advances.
Justice Kunhikrishnan recorded, “if the facts narrated by the prosecution and the victim are correct, it is unfortunate because the petitioner is from a noble profession.” The court further recorded, “after going through the statement of the victim (if it is correct), a human being cannot complete reading it without tears in their eyes because the allegation is that the petitioner abused a minor girl, without her consent.”
In concluding its findings, the court stated, “such a person is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court.”
The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application and ordered that the reports submitted by the Project Coordinator, Victim Rights Centre (KeLSA) and the counselling report be sealed and retained on record. The order recorded, “The Registry will seal the same and keep in the file so that if any subsequent bail application is filed by the petitioner, these reports can be used.”
The court noted the victim’s aspirations as recorded by the Project Coordinator, stating, “Survivor is now focused on completing her 12th grade and joining the coaching centre for Medicine. With pride in her eyes, she expressed her ambition to become a Forensic Surgeon.” The court concluded, “the entire society is with her, fingers crossed, to achieve her dream.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. P. Vijayabhanu, S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Anilkumar C.R., K.S. Kiran Krishnan
For the Respondents: Sr. PP K.A. Noushad, Smt. Parvathi A. Menon (Project Coordinator, VRC, KeLSA)
Case Title: xxx v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:24151
Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 1777 OF 2025
Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan
[Read/Download order]
