Sayyid Sulfudheen Koya Thangal vs State Of Kerala & Anr.

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 sole accused in Crime No.824/2026 of Adimaly Police Station, Idukki District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 74, 75(1)(i), 76 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant, who is a priest in a mosque at Odackacity in Idukki District and also a teacher in the Madrasa, patted on the shoulder of the victim, and pinched her breast and, on one occasion, tried to make her sit on the cot by pressing her on the shoulder, raised her parda and thereby committed the aforementioned offences.

I have heard Sri. Gopalakrishna Kurup, the learned Senior counsel for the applicant, Sri. V.Vinay, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Sri. K.V.Sabu, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant. 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 Senior Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the de facto complainant, 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. I went through the FIS as well as the statement given by the victim under Section 187(3) of BNSS before the learned Magistrate. In both the statements, the victim has categorically and specifically stated about the sexual harassment meted out to her by the applicant.

It has come out from the records that another crime was registered against the applicant at the instance of the mother of the victim as Crime No.672/2026. In that crime, the allegation is that the applicant had sexually assaulted the mother of the victim. The learned Senior counsel for the applicant invited my attention to Annexure A4 order by which the Sessions Court granted bail to the applicant in Crime No.672/2026. The learned Senior counsel has also invited my attention to the statement given by the victim in that crime. In the statement dated 02.07.2026, the victim had stated that the applicant had not sexually assaulted her. However, in the present crime, the victim's statement was recorded before the learned Magistrate subsequently, on 14.08.2026, wherein she clearly stated that she was sexually assaulted by the applicant on several occasions. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is absolutely necessary.

The investigation is in a preliminary stage. As rightly argued by the learned Senior 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.