SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57697

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
V.M MANOHARAN @ MANU MADHAV – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 14558 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.RAMEEZ NOOH, SMT.FATHIMA K., SHRI.DANIC ANTONY, SMT.KRISHNENDU K.V., SMT.JENNA SUSAN BAJI
For the Respondents: SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA

The court determined that continued detention of the accused is unnecessary after considering the duration of custody and the nature of allegations.

Headnote:The bail application was filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner, accused of serious sexual offences, argued for release based on the duration of custody. The court evaluated the allegations, and while acknowledging prima facie evidence, determined that continued detention was unwarranted. Ultimately, the petitioner was granted bail with specific conditions outlined.

Result: The application is allowed with conditions.

Table of Content
1. accused charged with sexual offences leading to bail application. (Para 2)
2. petitioner argues for bail based on duration of custody. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court observes the necessity of detention amid allegations. (Para 7 , 8)

ORDER

This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.780/2025 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 64 (1) and Section 64 (2)(f)

of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused had on

08.09.2025, forced the victim to perform oral sex on him and also indulged in sexual intercourse with her and threatened her not to disclosed it to anyone, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. 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 petitioner claims to be a scriptwriter with whom the victim became acquainted and he sought her assistance for his work. Exploiting the vulnerability of the victim, the accused threatened and compelled her to perform oral sex on him and thereafter engaged in sexual intercourse with her. Though the petitioner states that even if the entire prosecution allegations are admitted, still it can only reveal a consensual relationship, I am of the view that those are all matters to be identified after trial.

7. Having regard to the period of custody already undergone and also bearing in mind the solitary instance of sexual assault alleged, I am of the view that further detention of the petitioner is not necessary, as it may result in punishment before conviction.

8. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the petitioner with the crime, since he has been in custody from 31.10.2025 onwards, I am of the view that the continued detention is not required in the circumstances of the case. 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 or contact the victim or her family members.

(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 law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top