1. Application for pre-arrest bail in respect of alleged sexual assault offences registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
Muhammed Hussain – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 6727 OF 2026
Important Points
Pre-arrest bail may be granted where there is an unexplained delay in filing the FIR and circumstantial evidence suggests the complaint may be motivated by recent animosity, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: S.115(2), S.64(2)(m), S.137(2), S.351(3)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: S.4 r/w 3(a), S.6 r/w 5(l), S.12 r/w 11(v)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: S.115(2), S.64(2)(m), S.137(2), S.351(3)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: S.4 r/w 3(a), S.6 r/w 5(l), S.12 r/w 11(v)
Headnote
(A) Pre-arrest Bail - Delay in Filing FIR - Where a significant delay exists between the alleged incident (2022) and the registration of the FIR (2026) without explanation, and the complaint follows a scuffle between the accused and the victim's current partner, the necessity for custodial interrogation is diminished. (Para 6)
(B) Bail - Consensual Relationship - Evidence suggesting a prior consensual relationship and a subsequent fallout leading to animosity may weigh in favor of granting bail when the investigation is nearly complete. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail given the delay in FIR registration and the nature of the allegations.
(B) Bail - Consensual Relationship - Evidence suggesting a prior consensual relationship and a subsequent fallout leading to animosity may weigh in favor of granting bail when the investigation is nearly complete. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail given the delay in FIR registration and the nature of the allegations.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.G. Rajendran, T.R. Tarin
For the Respondents: V. Vinay
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.G. Rajendran, T.R. Tarin
For the Respondents: V. Vinay
Table of Contents
2. Applicant pleads innocence and lack of evidence connecting him to the crime; the prosecution asserts the incident was intentional and bail would obstruct the ongoing investigation. (Para 5 )
3. Given the history of a consensual relationship, significant registration delay, and strained relations following a rivalry, custodial interrogation is unnecessary as the investigation is substantially completed. (Para 6 )
4. Pre-arrest bail may be granted when custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary, particularly in cases marked by significant unexplained delays and prior personal animosity between the parties. (Para 6 )
5. The application for pre-arrest bail is allowed subject to conditions including furnishing a bond, appearing before the investigating officer, and not tampering with evidence or witnesses. (Para 6 )
6. Does a significant delay in filing a First Information Report influence the grant of pre-arrest bail?
Yes. An unexplained, substantial delay in registration of the FIR, particularly when viewed alongside existing animosity between parties, is a material consideration when determining whether to grant pre-arrest bail. (Para 6 )
7. Is custodial interrogation always necessary in cases involving sexual assault allegations?
No. Custodial interrogation is not mandatory if the court finds it unnecessary for the investigation, especially when the investigation is advanced and the accused is deemed entitled to bail based on case-specific circumstances. (Para 6 )
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.607/2026 of Town Police Station, Kozhikode District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 115(2), 64(2)(m), 137(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 r/w 3(a), 4 r/w 3(d), 6 r/w 5(l) and 12 r/w 11(v) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on a day during January 2022, while the survivor was aged 15 years, the applicant took the survivor to a resort at Wayanad and thereafter to his house at Kuttichira and Mariyam Villa near Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode, and committed penetrative sexual assault. The applicant recorded photos and videos of the sexual abuse and threatened her that he will circulate the same. On 24.09.2026 at 08.20 p.m., the applicant assaulted the survivor at Kozhikode South Beach and thereby committed the above offences.
4. I have heard Sri.Rajendran T.G., the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.V. Vinay, 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. A reading of the First Information Statement would show that the applicant and the victim were in a relationship and that they had consensual sexual intercourse. The victim admits that she separated from the applicant and fell in love with another person, which led to animosity between her and the applicant. The alleged incident took place in the year 2022. The First Information Report was registered only in the year 2026. There is no explanation for the delay. On the day prior to the registration of the First Information Report, there occurred a scuffle between the present lover of the victim and the applicant, and it was on the next day that the complaint of sexual assault was filed. The investigation is almost over. 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.
