Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas granted bail to a 26-year-old accused facing charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, along with offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Prosecution alleged that he repeatedly followed a 15-year-old girl, contacted her on Instagram, threatened her with a knife, forced her into a house, kissed her, and took photographs after intimidating her with threats to her family. Despite his involvement in 21 other criminal cases, bail was allowed with strict safeguards.

The bail application was filed by a 26-year-old accused in Crime No.1135 of 2025 registered at Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha. The case involved offences punishable under Sections 137, 74, 75(1)(i), 75(2), 351(2) and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 8 read with Section 7 and Section 12 read with Section 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Also Read: Arbitration & Conciliation Act | Execution of Arbitral Award Cannot Be Deferred Merely Due to Pendency of Section 37 Appeal Without Interim Stay: Supreme Court

The prosecution alleged that the accused repeatedly followed a 15-year-old girl, contacted her through Instagram, and on 22.05.2025, threatened her with a knife, forced her into a house, kissed her, and took photographs after threatening to kill her family members. He was arrested on 30.05.2025 and has been in custody since then.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations were false, the incident had not occurred, and the petitioner had already been in custody since May 2025. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, stating that the petitioner was involved in 21 other crimes including offences under the NDPS Act, theft, and dacoity, and therefore should not be granted bail.

The Court noted: “Though the allegations are serious, considering the fact that petitioner has been in custody from 30.05.2025 and also the fact that final report was filed on 22.07.2025, I am of the view that further detention would amount to punishment before conviction.”

It further stated: “Though the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that petitioner is involved in 21 other crimes, considering his young age and also the fact that he has already been in custody for the last more than 90 days, this Court is of the view that he can be released on bail.”

The Bench recorded that: “Strict conditions shall be imposed to ensure the safety of the victim and to prevent the petitioner from committing further offences.”

The Court concluded its order stating: “In the result, this bail application is allowed on the following conditions:-”

“Petitioner shall be released on bail on him 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 court having jurisdiction.”

“Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case. Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence or contact the victim or her family members. Petitioner shall not enter into the jurisdictional limits of the Police Station, where the victim in the instant case resides.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction of Sub Postmaster for Misappropriation | Court Notes Voluntary Confession and Modifies Sentence

“Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every fourth Saturdays between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. until conclusion of trial. For the said purpose alone petitioner shall be permitted to enter the jurisdictional limits of Kayamkulam Police Station.”

“Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail. Petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.”

“In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Shri. Binu Babukuttan, Smt. Nima Meriyam Koshy, Smt. Arya Devasia, Shri. Sreerag S.
For the Respondents: Shri. Noushad K. A., Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Muhammed Anwarsha v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:69960
Case Number: B.A. No. 11156 of 2025
Bench: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas