Kerala High Court
Amal. N.A vs State Of Kerala on 14 July, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:51587
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6595 OF 2025
CRIME NO.95/2025 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.389 OF 2025 OF
FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT II, MANJERI.
PETITIONER:
AMAL. N.A,
AGED 20 YEARS,
S/O AHAMMED, NALAKATH PADUVINGAL HOUSE,
KECHERI, ERANELLUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 501.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SRI.LIBIN STANLEY
SMT.SAIPOOJA
SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL
SMT.R.GAYATHRI
SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA
SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH
SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682 031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOTTAKKAL P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 503.
Bail Appl. No.6595 of 2025
2025:KER:51587
-2-
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. No.6595 of 2025
2025:KER:51587
-3-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------
Bail Appl. No.6595 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.95 of 2025
of Kottakkal Police Station, Malappuram, which is now pending as
S.C.No.389 of 2025 on the files of Fast Track Special Court-II,
Manjeri, registered for the offences punishable under sections 96,
75(1)(i), 75(1)(ii), 75(2), 332(b), 144(2), 64(2)(m), 351(2) and 76
r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS')
and Section 4 r/w Section 3(a), 6 r/w Section 5(i)(1), 8 r/w Section
7, 12 r/w Section 11(iv)(v) and 14 r/w Section 13(a)(b) of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short
'POCSO').
3. According to the prosecution, the accused committed
repeated penetrative sexual assault on a 17-year-old girl and also
received Rs.1,00,000/- after threatening to publish videographs in
the social media and thereby committed the offences alleged.
Petitioner is also alleged to have along with the second accused
2025:KER:51587
sexually assaulted the victim.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has been in custody since 05.02.2025. It was
submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to
the petitioner or his relatives at the time of his arrest.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application and submitted that though the grounds of arrest have
not been communicated, it can only vitiate the arrest and
therefore, considering the heinous nature of the crime committed
by the petitioner, nothing prevents the prosecution from arresting
him again, if this Court declares the arrest to be legal. It is also
submitted that the petitioner has committed a very serious offence,
that too, against a 16 year old girl. The learned Public Prosecutor
also submitted that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.147 of
2025 of Parappanagadi Police Station, alleging offence of
penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.
6. Though prima facie there are materials on record to
connect the petitioner with the crime, since petitioner has raised
the question of absence of communication of the grounds for his
arrest, this Court is obliged to consider the said issue.
7. In the decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India
2025:KER:51587
and Others, [(2024) 7 SCC 576], Prabir Purkayastha v. State
(NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254] and Vihaan Kumar v. State
of Haryana [AIR 2025 SC 1388], it has been held that the
requirement of informing a person of grounds for arrest is a
mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) and also that the
information of the grounds for arrest must be provided to the
arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the
basic facts confuting the grounds imparted and communicate to
the arrested person effectively in the language which he
understands.
8. In the instant case, the learned Public Prosecutor
fairly conceded that the grounds for arrest have not been properly
communicated. It was also submitted that a notice under Section
35(3) of the BNS alone was communicated to the petitioner. Since
the petitioner is only 20 years in age, I am of the view that even
though he is involved in another crime, still, since the arrest is
vitiated due to the failure to communicate to him the grounds for
arrest he is liable to be released. Though considering the nature of
allegations, a custodial trial would have been proper, in the light of
the decisions mentioned above, an accused cannot be retained
even for a second if the arrest is vitiated.
9. Further the contention of the learned Public
2025:KER:51587
Prosecutor that, if the arrest is vitiated, petitioner can be arrested
again and, hence, bail bond ought not be directed to be deposited,
though impressive, considering the young age of the petitioner and
also the period of custody already undergone and bearing in mind
that this Court is exercising a bail jurisdiction the said contention
is declined in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
However, strict conditions ought to be imposed on the petitioner.
10. Petitioner has been in custody from 05.02.2025. onwards.
Since the grounds for arrest was not communicated to the
petitioner soon after his arrest, petitioner is entitled to be released
on bail.
In the result, this application is allowed on the following
conditions:-
(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing
a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with
two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.
(b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case
and also appear before the Investigating Officer on every
fourth Saturday of the month between 10.00 and 12.00
pm., until the conclusion of the trial.
(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence
the witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the
evidence and shall not contact the victim or enter into
the Panchayat area where the victim resides.
(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while
he is on bail.
2025:KER:51587
(e) Petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without
the permission of the jurisdictional Court.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any
modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the
jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such
applications if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with
law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
ADS
2025:KER:51587
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6595/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO.95 OF 2025 OF
KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT.
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BEFORE THE FAST TRACK
SPECIAL COURT-II, MANJERI.
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.04.2025 IN
CRL.M.P. NO. 62/2025 IN SC NO. 389 OF
2025 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL
COURT-II; MANJERI.
