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) 8143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
ABHIJITH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 633 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.500/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR, SMT.A.SALINI LAL, SHRI.JINU P. BINU
For the Respondents: SRI.M.C. ASHI

The court adjudicated that the severity of allegations and absence of changed circumstances justified the denial of bail.

Headnote:This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail. The applicant is the accused in Crime No.500/2025, facing serious allegations under the PoCSO Act. The Court determined that the seriousness of the accusations and the applicant's conduct warranted denial of bail. The bail application is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. application for bail under bnss (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments from both sides regarding bail (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.500/2025 of Peroorkkada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 4 r/w Section 3 (a), Section 6 r/w Section 5 (n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, PoCSO Act).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant on 10.02.2025, compelled a minor boy aged 14 years to perform oral sex and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. I have heard Sri.R.Sunil Kumar, 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 Senior 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 21.04.2025. 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. All the three bail applications filed by the applicant were dismissed by the court holding that the applicant sexually assaulted a minor boy by committing anal and oral penetrative sexual assault knowing that he was having HIV positive status. The allegation is very serious in nature. I find no change of circumstances to grant bail to the applicant. 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/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

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