2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 8500
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
GALEEL PAUL SAJI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 548 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.S.RAJEEV, SRI.V.VINAY, SRI.M.S.ANEER, SHRI.SARATH K.P., SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R., SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN, SHRI.AZAD SUNIL, SMT.DIPA V., SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS, SHRI.T.P.ARAVIND, SMT.AKSHARA S., SHRI.MAHESWAR PADICKAL, SMT.NIVEDITA RAJEEV
For the Respondents: SMT.SREEJA V.
Bail granted under Section 483 of BNSS considering absence of strong evidence and nature of the relationship.
Headnote:This judgment pertains to a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner, a 19-year-old accused in Crime No.1490/2025, sought bail following allegations of sexual assault against a minor, aged 15. The court noted the absence of substantial evidence linking the applicant to the incident and considered factors including the applicant's lack of criminal history and the nature of the relationship. The court allowed the bail application under specific conditions. The primary issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations and evidence presented. The court held that the application was justified, and the applicant was granted bail with conditions to ensure his cooperation with investigations and to prevent potential contact with prosecution witnesses.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the crime and applicant's background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding bail entitlement. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning for granting bail. (Para 6) |
O R D E R
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.1490/2025 of Kunnathunadu Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 63 (a), 63(b), 63(d)(iv), 64(1), 64(2)(m), 65(1) and 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 read with 3(a), 3(b), 6 read with Section 5 (i), 5(l) and 8 read with Section 7 of the POCSO Act, 2012 .
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant, who is the neighbour of the victim girl aged only 15 years got acquainted with her, and on 21/08/2025 at 04:00 p.m., he went to the rented house of the victim and caused her to sit on his lap, kissed her and on 02.10.2025 at 10:00 a.m., he again went to the house of the victim and hugged her belly, removed her dresses and inserted his penis into her anus, thereby committed an unnatural sexual assault against the victim. Then he inserted his penis and finger into her vagina causing pain to the victim and also bit and kissed on her body. Thus, the applicant committed the aforesaid offences.
4. I have heard Sri. S. Rajeev, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Sreeja V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Even though notice has been served to the victim, there is no appearance. 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. The investigation is almost over. The applicant was aged 19 years and the victim was aged 15 years at the time of the incident. A reading of the FIS would show that they were in love. The allegation would reveal that it is noting but an adolescent sexual relationship. The medical certificate would show that the victim disclosed to the doctor that there was only an attempt of sexual assault. However, in the FIS, there is an allegation that there was actual sexual assault. At any rate, considering the fact that it is an adolescent relationship, that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and that he is in custody from 30.12.2025, I am of the view that further detention of the applicant is not necessary. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions: -
(i) The applicant shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.
(ii) The applicant shall fully co-operate with the investigation.
(iii) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. He shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.
(v) The applicant shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.
(vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.
(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of the bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of vi