Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 1053
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
ABDUL AZEES – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 84 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.MANSOOR ALI
For the Respondents: SRI.M.C.ASHI, SR. PP.
The court denied bail based on the severity of the allegations and the evidence indicating premeditated criminal conduct.
Headnote:This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.1913/2025, with serious allegations of aggravated sexual assault on a minor victim. The Court finds, considering the nature of the crime and the applicant's age, that he cannot be released on bail at this stage. The main issue before the Court was whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the serious nature of the accusations. The court concluded that the applicant, aged 71, cannot be released on bail considering the gravity of the offence and the prima facie evidence against him. The bail application, accordingly, is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for bail on serious charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against bail. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's evaluation of bail eligibility. (Para 6) |
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, BNSS )
seeking regular bail.
2. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.1913/2025 of Irinjalakuda Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 4 50 , 342, 376, 376(2)(f), 354, 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 read with Section 3 (a), Section 6 read with Section 5 (n) and Section 8 read with Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 (for short ‘PoCSO Act’).
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that in February 2021, the applicant committed aggravated sexual assault on the minor victim, who is his relative.
4. I have heard Sri.Mansoorali, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage.
6. The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 30.12.2025. A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation against the applicant is very serious, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. The applicant is aged 71 years and the victim was aged 12 years at the time of the incident. Even though there is a delay of 4½ years in registering the crime, that has been properly explained by the victim in her F.I.S. Considering the nature of the crime, the gravity of the offence, the complicity of the applicant in it, and the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that the applicant cannot be released on bail at this stage. The bail application, accordingly, is dismissed.
Sd/-
