By Jeevak Mukherjee

In a significant judicial development, the Kerala High Court recently delivered a pivotal judgment in Bail Application No. 2418 of 2024, setting a crucial precedent regarding anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case, titled Prabhakaran P. vs. State of Kerala, revolved around serious allegations of sexual misconduct against a 65-year-old individual, who is the principal of Atlas Education Centre in Chirakkara. The allegations, detailed in Crime No. 245/2024 at the Parippally Police Station, Kollam, implicated the petitioner under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. It was alleged that the petitioner made inappropriate advances towards a ninth-grade student, involving both verbal and physical misconduct.

During the court proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel vehemently denied the accusations, asserting the petitioner’s unblemished record over 38 years of running the tuition center without any prior complaints. They argued that the charges were fabricated, and that the petitioner was willing to cooperate fully with the investigation. Accordingly, they sought anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner. Conversely, the prosecution contended that the severity of the allegations warranted custodial interrogation to ensure a thorough investigation. They highlighted the immediate reporting of the incident by the victim and emphasized the traumatic impact on the minor, arguing that granting anticipatory bail could impede justice.

Justice A. Badharudeen, delivering the judgment, referenced precedents set by the Supreme Court, particularly the case of Sumitha Pradeep v. Arum Kumar C.K. and Another. The Supreme Court’s ruling had underscored that anticipatory bail should not be granted solely on the basis that custodial interrogation is unnecessary, especially in cases involving grave offenses. Justice Badharudeen echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the need to prioritize the prima facie evidence against the accused and the severity of the alleged offenses.

In its decision, the court declined the petitioner’s plea for anticipatory bail, citing the substantial prima facie case against him and the serious nature of the charges. The judgment underscored the importance of unhindered investigation, particularly in cases concerning offenses against minors under the POCSO Act and Juvenile Justice Act. It reiterated that while custodial interrogation might not always be mandatory, it should not be disregarded if it serves the interest of justice and thorough investigation.

Case title: Prabhakaran P vs. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2024/KER/36950

Click here to view/download the judgement