1. Application for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS for offence under Section 75(1)(i) BNS for assault with sexual intent. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 61323
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
M. Revikrishnan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 5008 OF 2026
Important Points
The court granted pre-arrest bail upon finding that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, emphasizing that the liberty of the accused can be secured through conditional bail when evidence for custodial interrogation is lacking.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Pre-arrest Bail - Custodial Interrogation - Where the court finds that custodial interrogation is unnecessary based on the materials on record and the circumstances of the case, pre-arrest bail may be granted to protect the liberty of the accused. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of sexual assault under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of sexual assault under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Revikrishnan
For the Respondents: Aneeda Beegum
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Revikrishnan
For the Respondents: Aneeda Beegum
Table of Contents
2. Applicant claimed innocence and false implication; prosecution submitted release would affect the investigation. (Para 5 )
3. Considering the allegations and that the parties are lawyers, custodial interrogation of the applicant seemed unnecessary. (Para 6 )
4. Pre-arrest bail may be granted when custodial interrogation is unnecessary for investigation of the offence alleged. (Para 6 )
5. Application allowed; pre-arrest bail granted on conditions including bond, cooperation, and no witness tampering. (Para 6 )
6. What is the test for granting pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS when the parties are lawyers?
The court considers whether custodial interrogation is unnecessary; here, because both parties were lawyers and a counter case existed, pre-arrest bail was granted. (Para 6 )
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre-arrest bail.
2. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.942/2026 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, Palakkad District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 75(1)(i) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The applicant and the defacto complainant are advocates by profession. Both of them practise at the Palakkad Court Centre. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 05.08.2026 at 11:40 a.m. at the court hall of Additional District and Sessions Court- V, Palakkad, while the defacto complainant, who attended the court, was moving out in order to write a petition, the applicant committed assault against the defacto complainant by pressing on her buttocks with sexual intent, outraged her modesty and thereby committed the aforesaid offence.
4. I have heard Sri.M.Revikrishnan, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.Aneeda Beegum, 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 above crime. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the applicant's intentional criminal acts, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.
6. The applicant and the defacto complainant are lawyers. Annexure 2 would show that at the instance of the applicant, a crime was registered against the defacto complainant and others. Considering the allegations made against the applicant, his custodial interrogation seems unnecessary. For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant.
In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest 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 arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may be.
(ii) The applicant shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for discovery, if any, as and when demanded.
(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 bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.
