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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5092

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
RAJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 14348 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.2562/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.GODWIN JOSEPH
For the Respondents: SMT.SREEJA V.

The court determined that the gravity of the allegations justified the denial of bail.

Headnote:This bail application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the sole accused in Crime No.2562/2025, alleged to have committed serious offences against a minor victim. The court found the accusations to indicate premeditated criminal behavior suggesting the need for detention due to the gravity of the crime. The court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the facts presented.

Table of Content
1. accusations of serious sexual assault against a minor. (Para 2)
2. arguments presented by the applicant and prosecution. (Para 4 , 5)

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.2562/2025 of Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 4 (2) read with 3(d) and 12 read with 11(i) and 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on

18.10.2025 at 12 pm, the applicant enticed the victim, a boy aged 13 years, to give a food named 'Mandi', took him to the house of the applicant, thereafter committed penetrative sexual assault, assaulted him by kissing and biting on his lip and by sucking his penis and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri. Godwin Joseph, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Sreeja V., 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.

The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on

26.10.2025. 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 50 years and the victim is a boy aged 13 years. 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/-

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