Kiran Raj

The Kerala High Court Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan has granted bail to a petitioner accused under various provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Child) Act, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court determined that prolonged incarceration was not warranted, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the accused's compliance with the legal process.

The petitioner, a 24-year-old individual, was arrested in connection with Crime No.1645/2024 registered at the North Paravur Police Station, Ernakulam. The prosecution alleged that in January 2024, the petitioner engaged in inappropriate physical contact with a minor victim with sexual intent and inflicted physical harm using a stick and a cigarette. The case was filed under Section 75(i)(5) of the BNS, Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and Section 8 read with Section 7 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution stated that the victim, a minor, was subjected to both physical and mental abuse, which resulted in severe trauma. The prosecution further stated the need for the continued custody of the petitioner to ensure that the victim and witnesses were not influenced. Evidence was presented, including medical reports confirming burn injuries allegedly caused by the petitioner and witness testimonies corroborating the victim’s statements.

The defense, argued that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since January 16, 2025, and that prolonged detention was unwarranted as the investigation had made substantial progress. The defense further contended that the petitioner had no prior criminal record and was willing to comply with any conditions imposed by the court. It was also submitted that the petitioner’s continued custody would amount to undue hardship, particularly when the maximum punishment for the alleged offenses did not exceed seven years.

The High Court, in considering the arguments presented, stated that the principle of granting bail was firmly rooted in legal jurisprudence. The court stated:

"The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception is well established in our legal system. Denial of bail should be justified on the basis of clear and compelling reasons, especially in cases where the prescribed punishment is below a certain threshold."

The court also referenced precedent cases, including Chidambaram P v. Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870], stating:

"When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law."

Additionally, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India [2024 KHC 6431], the Supreme Court ruled that:

"The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of criminal law. Courts must ensure that detention is not used as a punitive measure but only as a means to secure fair trial proceedings."

The High Court observed that the petitioner had remained in custody for over a month and that the prosecution had not presented sufficient grounds to justify further detention. The court also noted that stringent conditions could be imposed to ensure that the accused did not interfere with the investigation or threaten witnesses.

Further, in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426], the Supreme Court stated:

"Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach."

Taking these legal precedents into consideration, the High Court determined that the petitioner’s continued detention was not justified and decided to grant bail with conditions ensuring compliance with the legal process.

The High Court set forth the following conditions for granting bail:

1. The petitioner shall execute a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

2. The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer whenever required and fully cooperate with the investigation.

3. The petitioner is prohibited from directly or indirectly making any inducements, threats, or promises to any witnesses.

4. The petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission from the jurisdictional court.

5. The petitioner shall not commit any offense similar to those alleged.

6. The petitioner must report to the Investigating Officer every Monday at 10:00 AM until the final report is filed.

7. If any condition is violated, the jurisdictional court has the authority to cancel the bail.

The court further noted that the prosecution and the victim were at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to seek cancellation of bail in case of any violations by the petitioner.

Case Title: xxx v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl. No. 2740 of 2025
Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan

[Read/Download order]