[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Hashik M.K vs State Of Kerala on 23 December, 2025
1
B.A.NO.14513/2025 1 2025:KER:98793
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 2ND POUSHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 14513 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1182/2025 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.12.2025 IN Bail
Appl. NO.14113 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
HASHIK M.K
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED, NOUFAS COTTAGE, ATHAZHAKUNNU,
P.O. PUZHATHI, KANNUR, PIN - 670005
BY ADV SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
PP ADV. M.C ASHI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
B.A.NO.14513/2025 2 2025:KER:98793
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ( for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime
No.1182/2025 of Kannur Town Police Station registered for the
offences punishable under Section 75 of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 7 read with Section
8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012
(POCSO).
3. The prosecution case is that, on 06.04.2025 at
6.00 a.m., while victim girl aged 12 years was sleeping in the
bed room of the quarters of her mother's friend, the petitioner
sexually assaulted her by hugging her with sexual intent and
when she pushed his hand away, he forcibly hugged her and
caught hold of her breasts and urinating area. On the next day,
at the kitchen of his house and thereafter on another day in a
car, the petitioner sexually assaulted her.Thus, the accused
allegedly committed the above offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
B.A.NO.14513/2025 3 2025:KER:98793
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that, the petitioner has been judicial custody from 23.10.2025
onwards. He is innocent of the offences alleged. He is ready to
corporate with the investigation. Moreover, this is the second
petition for bail moved by him.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, if
this Court inclines to grant bail to the petitioner, strict
conditions may be incorporated in the bail order.
7. It is a well accepted principle that bail is the rule and
jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement [(2020)
13 SCC 791] after considering all the earlier judgments,
observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains
the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal
is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the
opportunity of securing fair trial.
8. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India
[2024 KHC 6431], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
"21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention
here that the Special Court and the High Court did not
B.A.NO.14513/2025 4 2025:KER:98793
consider the material in the charge sheet objectively.
Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and
therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly
appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail,
the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting
bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very
serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the
case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is
the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law. Even in
a case like the present case where there are stringent
conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes,
the same rule holds good with only modification that the
bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are
satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made
out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to
grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving
cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed
under Art.21 of our Constitution."
9. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement
[2024 KHC 6426], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
"53. The Court further observed that, over a period of
time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten
a very well - settled principle of law that bail is not to be
withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can
say that it appears that the trial courts and the High
Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail.
The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an
exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of
B.A.NO.14513/2025 5 2025:KER:98793
non - grant of bail even in straight forward open and
shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of
bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is
high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should
recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is
exception"."
10. From the materials on records, it is gatherable that,
this is the second petition for bail moved by the
petitioner/accused. He has been judicial custody from
23.10.2025. Having considered the period of judicial custody of
the petitioner and the present stage of the investigation, I am
of the view that, he can be released on bail by imposing strict
conditions. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following
directions:
1. The petitioner shall be released on bail on
executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for
the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
Court.
B.A.NO.14513/2025 6 2025:KER:98793
2. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on every Monday between
10.00 am and 11.00 am till the final report is filed or
for a period of three months from the date of his
release on bail, whichever event occurs first.
3. The petitioner shall appear before the
investigating officer for interrogation as and when he
is required to do so in writing, apart from the days
mentioned above, till the completion of the
investigation.
4. The petitioner shall co-operate with the
investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly,
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to the investigating officer.
5. The petitioner shall not contact the defacto
complainant/victim either directly or indirectly. He
shall not influence the witnesses or dissuade them
from giving statement to the Investigating Officer or
B.A.NO.14513/2025 7 2025:KER:98793
evidence during trial.
6.The petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
7. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar
to the offence of which he is accused.
8. It is made clear that if any of the above conditions
are violated by the petitioner, the prosecution and
the victim are at liberty to approach the
jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S.,
JUDGE
SLR
B.A.NO.14513/2025 8 2025:KER:98793
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14513 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC.
NO. 1590/2025ON THE FILE OF COURT OF
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES
UNDER POCSO ACT,
THALASSERYDT.13/11/2025
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A. NO.
14113/2025 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH
COURT, ERNAKULAMDT.3/12/2025
