Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; personal liberty must be prioritized unless compelling reasons justify denial.

ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita .

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.7/2025 of Vadanappally Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 4 r/w 3(a), 6 r/w 5(l)(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, POCSO Act) and Section 506 (1) of the Indian Penal Code .

3. The prosecution case is that, the minor victim aged 13 years was misused by the petitioner, a lady aged 29.

4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.P. Vijayabhanu, as instructed by the retaining counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. I also heard the learned counsel for the defacto complainant.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is wife of one Nidhin Gopal. Their marriage was solemnized on 07/05/2017 and they were leading matrimonial life. A daughter is also there in the matrimonial relationship. The husband of the petitioner is employed in gulf. It is also submitted that the husband solemnized the marriage with the petitioner suppressing that he was suffering from Herpes Simplex Virus. It is submitted that the petitioner also inflicted with the same virus after the marriage. It is further submitted that, while living together with husband, the petitioner had given gold and money to her husband for construction of a new house in a newly purchased land. Subsequently on 23/08/2023, the petitioner and husband started to reside in the new house at Thiruvananthapuram. It is also submitted that sister of the husband of the petitioner by name Siji is also residing in the nearby house. The victim in the aforesaid crime is the son of the aforesaid Siji. While the petitioner was living in Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner had given tuition to the victim and his sister. It is also submitted that subsequently the relationship between the petitioner and her husband got strained due to several incidents. Mediators intervened in the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her husband. The mediators found that the landed property in Thiruvananthapuram and house thereon in the joint name of the petitioner and her husband Nidhin Gopal fetches a marked value of Rs.1 crore. The house was constructed by utilizing a sum of Rs.51 lakhs is the submission. The family of the petitioner demanded the value of half share in the property. The petitioner’s family also sought a huge amount towards the compensation for spoiling the life of the petitioner on suppressing HSV at the time of marriage is the further submission. It is submitted that from May 2024 the petitioner has been living separately from her husband and she is residing with her parents in the parental home at Pullut in Kodungallur Taluk. It is submitted that the petitioner sent a lawyer notice to the husband of the petitioner seeking compensation, half share in the residential property maintenance to the petitioner and child. The petitioner produced Annexure-A3 lawyer notice. The lawyer notice was returned on 27.12.2024 stating that the husband is not available and he is in gulf. After Annexure-A3 notice, the present crime is registered alleging serious offences under the POCSO Act. It is submitted that it is a false case foisted against the petitioner.

6. The counsel for the defacto complainant seriously opposed the bail application. The counsel takes me through the FI Statement of the victim and submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. The counsel submitted that this Court may not invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section482 of BNSS in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The Public Prosecutor also opposed the bail application.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner, defacto complainant and the Public Prosecutor. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and her husband living separately. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner sent a lawyer not