Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 47996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. Babu, J
ATHUL RAJ A.B – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 12297 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.492/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.P.P.BLESSY MOL, SMT.MEREENA.J.JOSEPH
For the Respondents: SMT.M.K.PUSHAPALATHA
Anticipatory bail granted based on doubts regarding mens rea and credibility of prosecution's case.
Headnote:This judgment analyses an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 concerning anticipatory bail in Crime No.492/2025. The prosecution alleges grievous injury from 18.03.2025 to 23.06.2025. The court found doubts regarding the credibility of the prosecution's case. The applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail as custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegation of grievous injury with specified dates. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. defense argues improbabilities in prosecution's case. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court identifies doubt in mens rea. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court grants anticipatory bail. (Para 9) |
K.BABU, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
B.A.No.12297 of 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2025 ORDER This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.492 of 2025 of Mulavukad Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(2), 115(2) and
118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ).
3. The prosecution case as narrated in Annexure 2 order reads thus:
“With an intention to cause grevious injury to the defacto complainant during the period from 18.03.2025 to 23.06.2025, the accused has taken the defacto complainant to his house at Mulavukadu and he was beat with hands, cane and belt causing injury to him.”[sic.]
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged. It is unbelievable that a person, who is twenty-three(23) years old, residing twenty(20) kilometers away from his house was taken to the place of occurrence by the petitioner and committed the alleged acts, that too continuously for a period of three months, the learned counsel submitted.
6. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
7. I have gone through the Case Diary. The facts placed by the prosecution do not pursuade this Court to infer that a forceful sexual assault occurred.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me to a series of improbabilities in the prosecution materials. I feel that the mens rea of the petitioner is doubtful. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.
9. Having regard to the circumstances brought out, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.
In the result, these Bail Application is allowed as follows:
(a) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 31.10.2025 between 10.00 AM and 11.00 AM for interrogation. The petitioner shall continue to appear before the Investigating Officer on all Sundays between
10A.M. and 11 A.M. for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.
(b) The Investigating Officer is directed to release the petitioner on bail, in the event he is arrested, on his executing bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum.
(c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence.
(d) The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
Sd/-
