Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 28388
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G.Girish, J
Adarsh Manoj – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 2045 of 2026 | Crime No.122/2026 | Bail Appl. NO.1023 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.Irfan Ziraj, Sri.P.M.Ziraj
For the Respondents: Sri. G. Jayakrishnan-PP
Bail denied in POCSO case due to gravity of offences, prior antecedents, and risk of victim trauma.
Headnote:The petitioner is prosecuted under Sections 74, 75(1)(i), 75(2), 78(1), 333, 79, 115(2), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act for allegedly criminally trespassing into the victim's house at 4 a.m. on 25.01.2026 and sexually abusing the minor victim through the bedroom window, causing injury. The court noted the petitioner's prior involvement in POCSO offences and the final report filed on 12.03.2026, determining that bail would cause stress and trauma to the victim child. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail citing the petitioner's criminal antecedents and prior POCSO involvement. The petitioner's counsel argued no purpose in continued detention. The court reasoned that the gravity of offences, especially repeat POCSO involvement, precludes bail to protect the victim from further trauma. Bail application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. opposition based on antecedents and detention purpose. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. bail denied due to offence gravity and victim trauma risk. (Para 7) |
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 2. The petitioner faces criminal prosecution for the commission of offences under Sections 7 4 , 75(1)(i), 75(2), 78(1), 333, 79, 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 25.01.2026 at about 4 a.m., the petitioner criminally trespassed into the house of the victim and resorted to sexual abuse of the victim, who was sleeping in her bedroom, by putting his hands through the windows of the bedroom. It is further alleged that the victim suffered injury during the course of the above sexual assault of the petitioner.
4. The Bail Application has been strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor stating the reason that the petitioner has got criminal antecedents including the involvement of POCSO offences on previous occasions.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the final report in this case has been filed on 12.03.2026.
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no purpose to be fulfilled by the continued detention of the petitioner.
7. The offences alleged against the petitioner cannot be taken lightly. This is especially so in view of the fact that the petitioner was involved in a POCSO offence on an earlier occasion as well. It is of no doubt that the release of the petitioner on bail at this stage is likely to cause stress and mental trauma upon the victim child. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
In the result, the Bail Application is hereby dismissed.
