1. Application for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning allegations of sexual assault against a minor girl by a teacher. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
Shaheer Khan S – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 5877 OF 2026
Important Points
Pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS is an extraordinary remedy and will be denied in serious cases of sexual assault where prima facie evidence exists and custodial interrogation is necessary to prevent tampering with evidence or witnesses.
Subject
Criminal - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Pre-arrest Bail - Extraordinary Jurisdiction - Grant of bail under Section 482 of BNSS is not a matter of course and requires the establishment of a special case with recorded reasons. (Para 6)
(B) Criminal Investigation - Custodial Interrogation - In cases involving serious allegations of sexual assault against a minor, where a prima facie case of premeditated criminal acts is established and the investigation is at a preliminary stage, custodial interrogation is deemed necessary to prevent witnessing influencing and interference with the probe. (Para 6, 7)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the gravity of the offence and the stage of investigation.
(B) Criminal Investigation - Custodial Interrogation - In cases involving serious allegations of sexual assault against a minor, where a prima facie case of premeditated criminal acts is established and the investigation is at a preliminary stage, custodial interrogation is deemed necessary to prevent witnessing influencing and interference with the probe. (Para 6, 7)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the gravity of the offence and the stage of investigation.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Johny K. George, Athulya Martin
For the Respondents: V. Vinay
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Johny K. George, Athulya Martin
For the Respondents: V. Vinay
Table of Contents
2. The applicant claims false implication and lack of evidence, while the prosecution contends the gravity of the offence and potential for influencing witnesses necessitates custodial interrogation. (Para 5 )
3. The court found the allegations serious, involving a recurring, premeditated sexual assault against a minor, and determined that custodial interrogation is necessary for an effective investigation. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS cannot be granted as a matter of course, particularly when the offence is serious and trial interference is anticipated. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. The application for pre-arrest bail is dismissed. (Para 7 )
6. Is pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS a matter of right for an accused?
No, pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. It is an extraordinary power that must be exercised only when a special case is made out and recorded. (Para 6 )
7. Does the gravity of the offence and the risk of witness tampering justify denying pre-arrest bail?
Yes, if the accusations are serious and there is a reasonable apprehension that the accused will influence witnesses or interfere with the investigation, the court may refuse to grant pre-arrest bail. (Para 6 , 7 )
1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS), seeking pre-arrest bail.
2. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.785/2026 of Poonthura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 8 r/w 7, 10 r/w 9(f)(l)(m)(p) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant, who was working as a Madrasa teacher, committed acts of sexual assault on the victim, a minor girl, between 01.06.2019 and 31.03.2020, when she was studying in the 3rd standard. The victim is presently aged 14 years and studying in the 10th standard. The applicant thereby committed the aforementioned offences.
4. I have heard Sri. Johny K George, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.Vinay.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. 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 law regarding the grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power under Section 482 of BNSS could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. Perusal of the case diary reveals that the accusation made against the applicant is very serious in nature, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. Specific overt act has been attributed against the applicant. This is a case where a Madrasa teacher brutally sexually assaulted the minor victim repeatedly.
7. The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the investigation.
As rightly argued by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the applicant influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail. Considering the gravity of the offence and stage of the investigation, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of BNSS could be invoked. The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.
