Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 25539
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
SHAJU K.C – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 1940 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.91/2026 OF MUZHAKKUNNU POLICE STATION
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.CIBI THOMAS, SMT.SWARNA THOMAS
For the Respondents: SMT.SREEJA V., SR. PP
Bail denied in POCSO case due to serious nature, prima facie premeditation, and accused's antecedents.
Headnote:The court examined an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for regular bail in a case alleging offences under Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 7, 8, 9(l), 10 of the POCSO Act. Essential facts involved a 59-year-old counsellor accused of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old victim during counselling sessions on two occasions by kissing her cheek and touching her breasts with sexual intent. The court found prima facie evidence of a premeditated act supported by the First Information Statement. The primary issue was whether the accused deserved bail given the absence of connecting materials versus the seriousness of the allegations. The court relied on the gravity of POCSO offences, specific overt acts, and the accused's criminal antecedents to deny bail, emphasizing that the nature of the crime precluded release at this stage. The bail application was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application under bnss section 483 in pocso case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. sexual assault on minor during counselling (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments on innocence versus prosecution's case (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.91/2026 of Muzhakkunnu Police Station, Kannur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , Sections 7 read with 8 and 9(l) read with 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act .
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 13.9.2025 at 9.30 am and on 20.9.2025 at 10.00 am, while the victim minor girl aged 17 years went to the applicant's house situated at Thazhvaram in Muzhakkunnu amsom for undergoing counselling therapy, the applicant sexually assaulted her by kissing on her cheek, catching hold of her breasts by inserting his hands through her churidhar top with sexual intent and thereby committed the offences.
4. I have heard Sri. Cibi Thomas, 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 Seniro 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 23.2.2026. 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. Specific overt act has been attributed against the applicant in the FIS. The applicant is a counsellor aged 59 years, who sexually assaulted the victim aged 17 years. Moreover, the applicant has criminal antecedents. 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/-
