Kerala High Court: In the case where the accused, charged under Sections 333, 76, 64, 105 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), had sought bail in relation to a case wherein that he had attempted to sexually assault a 19-year-old woman and when she attempted suicide, smothered her resulting in her brain death, a Single Judge Bench of Bechu Kurian Thomas, J., directed him to be enlarged on bail, noting his young age, medical opinions and the remote possibility of an immediate trial.
Background:
On 25-01-2025, the 25-year-old accused trespassed into the house of the 19-year-old daughter (‘victim’) of the de facto complainant and due to an animosity against the victim for maintaining relationships with other men, outraged her modesty by disrobing her and attempted to commit penetrative sexual assault. Upon the victim’s resistance, he assaulted her with the handle of a hammer and due to the mental trauma, the victim attempted to commit suicide by hanging herself, noticing which, he cut the rope and brought her down. When she started shouting, he smothered her with the knowledge that the said act would result in her death. Since the accused did not provide medical treatment to the victim, she succumbed to the injuries which led to his arrest.
The accused’s counsel submitted that the allegations were false as the accused and the victim were in a romantic relationship and were living together. The victim was sensitive, had a learning disability and displayed traits of self-harm and impulsive outbursts. He submitted that the incident happened when the accused confronted the victim about her relationship with a third person. He further submitted that the injuries did not indicate any homicidal violation or sexual aggression but were self-inflicted or caused when the accused tried to save her from death. Further, the medical report showed no recent forced penetration or injuries to the victim’s private parts.
However, the Public Prosecutor urged that the allegations were grave and submitted that the accused attempted penetrative sexual intercourse and attacked the victim with a hammer, and when she tried to hang herself, smothered her, leaving her brain dead. The accused did not take her to the hospital indicating his intent to commit murder. The Public Prosecutor also pointed to the recovery of the hammer and argued that the materials collected prima facie indicated the accused’s guilt and considering the risks of him absconding or witness tampering, requested not to release him on bail.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that the postmortem report indicated that there were 21 antemortem injuries, of which 12 were minor abrasions and one was a pressure abrasion on the neck possibly caused by a ligature because of the hammer assault. Further, the postmortem report stated hanging as the cause of death with subsequent smothering contributing to brain death. The medical report did not demonstrate any recent forced penetrative sexual assault, identifying the vaginal bleeding as menstrual blood.
The Court referred to State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 2, and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1978) 1 SCC 118, wherein the Supreme Court had laid down the basic considerations which must weigh with the Court while granting bail in non-bailable offences as including the nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which were peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State etc.
The Court noted that the accused was in custody for more than 250 days since his arrest on 29-01-2025. There were no serious criminal antecedents existing against him, though five crimes were alleged, but none of them involved any serious offences. The investigation was completed, and the final report was filed as early as 31-03-2025. The Court observed that though the allegations were serious, but considering the accused’s young age, the possibility of commencing the trial immediately being very remote, the opinion in the postmortem report and the medical expert’s report, apart from the period of custody already undergone and the fact that the final report was already filed, the Court concluded that further detention of the accused was not necessary.
Therefore, while allowing the bail application, the Court enlarged the accused on bail on him executing a bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.
[Anoop K.M. v. State of Kerala, Bail Appl. No. 9032 of 2025, decided on 08-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Accused: Navaneeth. N. Nath, Abhirami S., Abdul Latheef P.M., Advocates.
For the Respondent: Noushad K.A., Public Prosecutor.
