Kuriyachan vs State Of Kerala

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS), seeking pre-arrest bail.

The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime No.416/2026 of Kambalakkad Police Station, Wayanad District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 74, 75(1)(i), 75(2) and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case, in short, is as follows: The defacto complainant, who had been residing with her husband's parents at Vilambukandam in Anchukunnu Amsom, was subjected to sexual harassment by the applicant, her husband's father, at the matrimonial home in the absence of other family members, on 29.03.2026 at about 6:30 a.m., again on 15.07.2026 and on another occasion, he, without her consent, touched her stomach and chest with sexual intent, kissed her and thereby outraged her modesty. The defacto complainant, after her marriage with the accused No.2 on 15.01.2026 at Vilambukandam St. Sebastian Church according to religious rites, while living together with his family, was continuously subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the accused Nos.1 to 4, who taunted her that the ten sovereigns of gold and approximately ₹2,00,000/- given as marriage gifts were insufficient for their family and further derided her as unemployed and incapable of contributing financially, thereby causing her sustained harassment and abuse. Thus, the applicant has committed the offences.

I have heard Smt. Celine Joseph, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. Thomas Sabu Vadakekut, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 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 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.

The law regarding the grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power under Section 482 of BNSS could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. Perusal of the case diary reveals that the accusation made against the applicant is very serious in nature, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. Specific overt act has been attributed against the applicant. The applicant, who is the father-in-law of the defacto complainant, repeatedly, sexually harassed her.

The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the applicant influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail. Considering the gravity of the offence and stage of the investigation, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of BNSS could be invoked. The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.