Allowed

Alan Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Mar 2025Bail Appl./3862/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a POCSO and related offences case sought regular bail after 82 days in custody with the final report filed. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that bail is the rule, the High Court granted bail on conditions including a parental surety.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties (one a parent), with investigation-cooperation and other standard conditions.

Alan Jose Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2025)

¶1

2025:KER:24244

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶6

BAIL APPL. NO. 3862 OF 2025

¶7

CRIME NO.1301/2024 OF Mala Police Station, Thrissur

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.2000
OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

ALAN JOSE
AGED 22 YEARS

¶11

S/O JOSE, PARAMAD DESOM, MADATHUMPADI VILLAGE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680733

¶12

BY ADVS.
JERRY MATHEW
DEVIKA K.R.
SIYAD UMMER

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶15

SR PP- HRITHWIK C S

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶17

BAIL APPL. NO.3862 OF 2025

¶18

2025:KER:24244

¶19

¶20

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶21

B.A.No.3862 of 2025

¶22

Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2025

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

¶25

Petitioner is the accused in Crime

¶26

No.1301/2024 of Mala Police Station, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(1)(2), 75(1)(i) (ii)(iii), 332(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Section 67B of the Information Technology Act (IT Act) and also Sections 4(1), 3(a), 6(1), 51, 8, 7, 10, 12, 11(iv), 11(v) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

¶27

The prosecution case is that; the petitioner started relationship with the defacto complainant, who is a minor through social media, and on 13.07.2024 at 23.30 hours, the petitioner committed penetrative sexual assault with defacto complainant at her house against her will and consent. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the

¶28

2025:KER:24244

¶29

BAIL APPL. NO.3862 OF 2025

¶30

¶31

offence.

¶32

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the

¶33

Public Prosecutor.

¶34

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is in custody from 27.12.2024. He is in custody for last 82 days. He also submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

¶35

Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

¶36

application. He submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious.

¶37

It seems that there was some love

¶38

relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Petitioner is aged only 22 years and the victim is aged 16 years. The petitioner is in custody for last 82 days. Public Prosecutor submitted that, the final report is already filed. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary. But, I make it clear that, one of the sureties shall be a parent of the petitioner.

¶39

2025:KER:24244

¶40

BAIL APPL. NO.3862 OF 2025

¶41

¶42

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 ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

¶43

Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of

¶44

India [2024 KHC 6431] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:

¶45

“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

¶46

2025:KER:24244

¶47

BAIL APPL. NO.3862 OF 2025

¶48

¶49

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.” (underline supplied)

¶50

In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of

¶51

Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426] , also the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:

¶52

2025:KER:24244

¶53

BAIL APPL. NO.3862 OF 2025

¶54

6 “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 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".

¶55

Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this

¶56

2025:KER:24244

¶57

BAIL APPL. NO.3862 OF 2025

¶58

7 case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

¶59

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. One of the sureties shall be a parent of the petitioner.

¶60

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶61

2025:KER:24244

¶62

BAIL APPL. NO.3862 OF 2025

¶63

¶64

Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

¶65

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.

¶66

The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also.

¶67

If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel

¶68

2025:KER:24244

¶69

BAIL APPL. NO.3862 OF 2025

¶70

¶71

the bail, if there is any violation of the above

¶72

conditions.

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶75

SSG

¶76

The Crime Number mentioned in the final order dated 21.03.2025 in B.A No.3862/2025 stands corrected and substituted as "Crime No.1361 of 2024 of Mala Police Station" instead of "Crime No.1301 of 2024 of Mala Police Station" as per order dated 25.03.2025 in Crl.M.A No.1/2025 in B.A No.3862/2025.

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Alan Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alan Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Subramonia Warrier Vs Pazhayakunnummel Grama Panchayat

Binilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Divakaran P Vs State of Kerala

Karan Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sundar Menon Vs State of Kerala

Vishnuraj. S Vs State of Kerala