Kerala High Court Denies Bail to Accused in Sexual Harassment Case on Public Bus

Court Decision and Context

In a swift ruling on November 4, 2025, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice K. Babu, dismissed a bail application filed by PS Krishnadas, a 52-year-old resident of Palakkad. The petitioner sought relief directly under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), bypassing the Sessions Court due to an alleged lack of local legal representation. The court found the offenses—alleged under Sections 78 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 119(a) and 119(b) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011—to be grave in nature, rendering bail inappropriate.

The case stems from an incident reported in Crime No. 1061/2025 at Palakkad Town North Police Station, highlighting concerns over sexual harassment in public spaces.

Case Overview

The defacto complainant, Adv. Athira P. Nair, a lawyer from Palakkad practicing at the local Bar Association and daughter of Prasannakumar R., boarded a private bus operated by Kandath Motors from the Stadium Bus Stand on September 9, 2025, around 6:50 PM. Krishnadas, the accused, also boarded the bus and sat in the rear. According to the prosecution, he attempted to photograph the complainant without consent, made sexually colored remarks when confronted, and harassed her by demanding sexual favors. These actions form the basis of charges under BNS Sections 78 (voyeurism) and 79 (insulting the modesty of a woman), alongside provisions of the Kerala Police Act addressing public nuisance and harassment.

Adv. Athira P. Nair was impleaded as the additional third respondent in the proceedings via an order dated November 4, 2025, in CRL.M.A. No. 1 of 2025.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's counsel, represented by Smt. P.V. Uttara and Smt. Shilpa Soman, argued that the allegations did not meet the ingredients of Section 75 of the BNS (which pertains to sexual harassment), emphasizing a lack of substantive evidence to support the charges.

Opposing the application, counsel for the complainant (Adv. Swetha R.) and the Public Prosecutor (Adv. M.C. Ashi) highlighted the severity of the incident. The Public Prosecutor presented the case diary, which documented the accused's demands for sexual favors and sexually colored remarks, underscoring the direct impact on the victim's dignity and safety.

The petitioner's claim of exceptional circumstances—citing reluctance from Palakkad Bar Association lawyers to represent him due to the victim's professional ties—was noted but did not sway the court.

Court's Reasoning

Justice K. Babu, after reviewing the case diary, observed that the materials clearly revealed acts of harassment, including unwelcome comments and requests for sexual favors. The court emphasized the gravity of the offenses, which involve violations of a woman's modesty in a public setting like a bus, a space meant for safe commuting.

No specific precedents were invoked in the judgment, but the ruling aligns with established principles under BNSS Section 482, which is an extraordinary remedy not to be granted lightly in serious criminal matters. The court distinguished the case from mere procedural hurdles, prioritizing the substantive allegations over the petitioner's representational challenges.

Key excerpt from the judgment: "The Case Diary... reveals that the petitioner demanded sexual favours from the defacto complainant and also made sexually coloured remarks. The offences alleged are grave in nature. The petitioner is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy under Section 482 of BNSS."

Final Decision and Implications

The bail application was dismissed in limine, with the petitioner remaining in custody pending trial. This decision reinforces the judiciary's stance against sexual offenses, particularly those occurring in public transport, signaling zero tolerance for behaviors that undermine women's safety.

For legal professionals, the ruling serves as a reminder of the thresholds for invoking Section 482 BNSS directly and the weight given to case diary evidence in bail assessments. For the public, it underscores the importance of reporting such incidents, potentially encouraging stricter enforcement of anti-harassment laws in Kerala.

The judgment was pronounced on the same day of admission, expediting the process in a case involving a professional victim.