Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
SAMSUL HAQUE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 14456 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.990/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.DHANYA BABU, SHRI.VIVEK VARGHESE EDAMURICKAL
For the Respondents: SRI.G.SUDHEER – Sr. PP
The court allows bail on conditions, emphasizing the balance between presumption of innocence and the nature of the charges.
Headnote:This bail application is made under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner, the sole accused in Crime No.990/2025, is alleged to have committed penetrative sexual assault on a minor victim. The court, after considering the circumstances, allowed bail stating further detention is unnecessary. Essential questions include the necessity of custody and the implications of the charges. The court emphasized the need for precautionary measures during the bail period. The application is allowed with conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application filed under relevant legal statutes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court hears arguments from both sides regarding bail. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. details regarding the relationship between the accused and the victim. (Para 7) |
| 4. court allows bail under specific conditions. (Para 8) |
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).
2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.990/2025 of Punnapra Police Station, Alappuzha District, registered alleging offences punishable under Section 6 3 r/w 4 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , and Section 4 (1) r/w Section 3 (a) and r/w Section 5 (i)(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 .
3. According to the prosecution, the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on a minor victim aged 17 years and impregnated her, and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 31.10.2025, and he has been in custody since then.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 31.10.2025, and hence he ought to be released on bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
7. Petitioner and the victim are stated to be husband and wife, hailing from Assam. Due to medical complications, after the victim became pregnant, they went to a doctor, who, on realizing that the victim was a minor, informed the police, and thereafter the crime was registered and the petitioner was arrested.
8. Having regard to the above circumstances and also taking into consideration the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner as well as his young age, I am of the view that further detention of the petitioner is not necessary. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-
(a) 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.
(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.
(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.
(e) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.
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 the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
