Kerala High Court
Selvaraj vs State Of Kerala on 6 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA No.2874 of 2025
1
2025:KER:18999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2874 OF 2025
CRIME NO.98/2025 OF VELLARADA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.02.2025 IN
CMP NO.345 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT (ATROCITIES & SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN & CHILDREN),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
SELVARAJ
AGED 61 YEARS, C/O THANKAM, MYLAKUNNU,
ANCHUMARAMKALAVELLARADA PO , VELLARADA ,
THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 505
BY ADV M.R.SASITH
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.:
SRI. G SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA No.2874 of 2025
2
2025:KER:18999
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA No.2874 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime
No.98/2025 of Vellarada Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences
punishable under Section 354A(1)(i) of IPC and
Sections 8 r/w 7, 10 r/w 9(n)(p) of the POCSO Act.
3. The victim is a minor girl aged 14 years
and she is studying in the 10 th standard. The
2025:KER:18999
accused is the grandfather of the victim. The
accused is a rubber tapper. The prosecution
allegation is that on 02.02.2024, while the victim
was sleeping in the house of the accused, with
sexual intent, he patted on her private parts
through her dress. Hence, it is alleged that the
accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is in custody from 18.01.2025.
The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is
ready to abide any conditions imposed by this
Court, if this Court grants him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application.
2025:KER:18999
7. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true
that the allegation against the petitioner is very
serious. But the fact remains that the petitioner
is in custody from 18.01.2025. Now he is in
custody for about 47 days. The maximum
punishment that can be imposed for the offences
alleged are below 7 years. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, I am of the
considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be
retained indefinitely. But, the interest of the
victim also should be considered. I am of the
considered opinion that the petitioner shall not
enter the jurisdictional limit of Vellarada Police
Station till final report is filed. Thereafter, if there
is any grievance to the parents of the victim, the
2025:KER:18999
parents of the victim can approach the
jurisdictional court with appropriate application
for imposing additional condition, even though
this order is passed by this Court. If such an
application is filed, the jurisdictional court can
impose appropriate condition. With the above
observation, bail can be granted.
8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle
that the bail is the rule and the jail is the
exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Chidambaram. P v. Directorate of
Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870], 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
2025:KER:18999
ensure that the accused has the opportunity of
securing fair trial.
9. 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
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
2025:KER:18999
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." (underline supplied)
10. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of
Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426], also 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 non -
grant of bail even in straight forward open
2025:KER:18999
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"."
Considering the dictum laid down in the
above decisions and considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is
allowed with the following conditions:
1. 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.
2. The petitioner shall appear before
the Investigating Officer for
interrogation as and when required.
2025:KER:18999
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 from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India
without permission of the
jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioner shall not commit an
offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused, or suspected,
of the commission of which he is
suspected.
2025:KER:18999
5. The petitioner shall not enter the
jurisdictional limit of Vellarada
Police Station till final report is
filed. Thereafter, if there is any
grievance to the parents of the
victim, the parents of the victim
can approach the jurisdictional
court with appropriate application
for imposing additional condition,
even though this order is passed by
this Court.
6. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner, the
jurisdictional Court can cancel the
bail in accordance with law, even
though the bail is granted by this
2025:KER:18999
Court. The prosecution and the
victim are at liberty to approach
the jurisdictional court to cancel
the bail, if there is any violation of
the above condition.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
