Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 19669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
JAMES – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 1195 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.1044/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.ARUN RAJ, SHRI.SRAVAN M.S., SHRI.AKHIL RAJ B., SMT.AMEESHA GEORGE, SHRI.VISHNU VIJAYAN, SHRI.AMARSHEK M.S., SHRI.BENSAN BENNY
For the Respondents: SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP
The court found that the serious nature of charges against the accused warranted denial of bail.
Headnote:This judgment addresses the bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The accused, charged with serious offenses, including sexual assault of a minor, denied the charges, stating innocence, but the prosecution presented compelling evidence of premeditated and serious criminal acts. The court, weighing the gravity of the accusations, ruled that the accused is not entitled to bail at this stage. The bail application is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application filed under specific statute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 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 accused in Crime No.1044/2025 of Thenmala Police Station, Kollam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 65 (2), 351(2) and 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , Sections 4 (2), 3(a), 3(d), 6(1), 5(m), 6, 9, 9(m), 10 and 7 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 .
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on
7.9.2025 at 6 pm, the applicant took the victim aged 7 years to the backyard of his residential house, removed her clothes, licked on her genital area, pressed his genital against the genital area of the victim child, forcibly made the victim to hold his genital organ and thereby committed the offences.
4. I have heard Sri. Arun Raj, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. Noushad K.A., 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.
The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on
12.9.2025. 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. I went through the FIS. The applicant who is a 55 year old man, brutally sexually assaulted a seven year old victim. 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/-
