Kerala High Court: While dealing with a bail application in Balaramapuram child murder case raising the issue of whether the continued detention of an accused, based on a co-accused’s confession to have facilitated a brutal killing of her own daughter, was justified in the absence of direct material evidence, the Single Judge Bench of Dr Kauser Edappagath, J., held that, despite the grave nature of the allegations, the absence of direct evidence connecting the applicant to the crime and the overall circumstances warranted her release on bail subject to strict conditions.
Also Read: Allahabad HC acquits man convicted of his wife & children’s murder after 23 years
Background
The accused persons were siblings, and the applicant was residing separately from her husband due to marital disputes. Following the death of their father on 13 January 2025, the applicant’s husband participated in the death rituals at her request.
It was alleged that Accused 1 had been persistently compelling the applicant to enter into a sexual relationship. On the date of occurrence, he allegedly sent a WhatsApp audio message making such a request, which the applicant refused, stating that her minor daughter was not asleep. Aggrieved by the refusal, Accused 1, with the intention of killing the minor child, entered the applicant’s bedroom at about 4.45 a.m. while she had gone to the washroom, took the child who was asleep, and proceeded towards a well. When questioned by the applicant, he allegedly responded that he would “end the nuisance once and for all” and proceeded to throw the child into the well after removing its covering. It was further alleged that he set fire to clothes in his room using petrol stated to have been provided by the applicant to divert attention from the child’s cries. The child later succumbed to death. The offences alleged were punishable under Section 103(1) read with Section 3(5), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 75, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).
The applicant’s counsel contended that she was innocent and falsely implicated, and that no materials were on record to connect her with the alleged crime. On the other hand, the prosecution argued that the incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and therefore she was not entitled to bail at that stage.
Analysis
The Court noted that the investigation was almost complete. Initially, the case was registered only against Accused 1 on 30 January 2025, and the applicant who was the victim’s mother was arrayed as an accused only after a lapse of nine months from the date of registration of the crime based on the confession of Accused 1.
The Court highlighted that the entire overt act was attributed to Accused 1, and that the prosecution case against the applicant was that she facilitated and colluded in the offence to kill the victim. The Court observed that, apart from the confession statement of the co-accused, there were no direct materials connecting the applicant with the crime.
The Court further considered that the applicant was a woman and had been in custody since 26 September 2025. While acknowledging that the murder was committed in a “very brutal manner” the Court held that the further detention of the applicant was not necessary.
Decision
Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application and imposed conditions including execution of bond, cooperation with investigation, periodic appearance before the investigating officer, non-interference with witnesses, and restriction on leaving the State without permission.
[Sreethu v. State of Kerala, Bail Appl. No. 2683 of 2026, decided on 8-6-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: Amrith M.J., Sarath K.P., Sruthy K.K, Risvi Muhammed, Gokul Krishnan R., Advocates.
For the Respondent: Thomas Sabu Vadakkekut, PP.
