The High Court of Kerala has granted bail to an accused in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case, observing that the three-year delay in lodging the FIR required close scrutiny given the “discernible possibility of false implication” arising from a financial dispute between the accused and the victim’s mother.
Justice Jobin Sebastian allowed the bail application moved by the petitioner, Sreenath K.S., who was accused of sexual offences against a minor girl. The Court noted that while delay in sexual offence cases is generally not fatal to the prosecution, it cannot be ignored when specific circumstances suggest a motive for false implication.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Sreenath K.S., was arraigned as the sole accused in Crime No. 804/2025 of Shornur Police Station, Palakkad District. The prosecution alleged that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 354A(1)(i), and 449 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 8, 7, 4(1), and 3(b) of the POCSO Act.
According to the prosecution, the accused was a friend of the survivor’s mother. The survivor, who is now 16 years old, was 13 at the time of the alleged incident. It was alleged that between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022, the accused entered the bedroom of the rented house where the survivor resided, put his hands inside her dress, touched her breast and abdomen, and inserted his fingers into her private parts.
The petitioner was arrested on October 29, 2025, and had been in judicial custody since then.
Arguments Before the Court
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused was “wholly innocent” and that the case was a “clear instance of false implication.” The defence contended that the victim’s mother had borrowed a substantial sum of money from the petitioner and fabricated the complaint to evade repayment. To substantiate this, the petitioner produced a cheque leaf for Rs. 20,00,000 allegedly issued by the victim’s mother in favour of the petitioner.
Furthermore, the defence submitted that the victim’s mother, who was estranged from her husband, had expressed a desire to marry the petitioner. However, the petitioner married another woman on October 20, 2025. The counsel argued that this marriage “triggered animosity on the part of the victim’s mother,” leading to the registration of the false case.
Opposing the plea, the Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the victim highlighted the “serious nature of the offence” and expressed concerns regarding the safety of the minor victim and the possibility of the accused repeating similar offences if released on bail.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Jobin Sebastian analyzed the delay in filing the FIR, noting that the crime was registered nearly three years after the alleged incident. The Court observed:
“While I am mindful of the settled law that delay in lodging an FIR in sexual offence cases is often of little consequence as the social stigma and the victim’s future often weigh heavily on the minds of parents, this principle is not absolute. Where there is a discernible possibility of false implication, such a delay must be scrutinised closely.”
The Court took into account the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, including the cheque and a trade license showing the victim’s mother as the proprietor of “Surya Constructions.” The Court remarked that these documents “prima facie suggest the existence of a financial transaction” between the parties.
Regarding the medical evidence, the Court noted:
“It is also pertinent to note that the medical examination of the victim indicates that her hymen is intact. Though this medical evidence does not completely rule out the possibility of sexual assault as defined under Section 375 of the IPC, it is a factor that supports the accused’s defence of innocence at this stage.”
The Court clarified that the genuineness of the documents and the existence of the financial transaction “can be conclusively decided only after a full-fledged trial” and that it could not conduct a “mini-trial” at the bail stage. However, considering that the investigation was complete and the final report had been filed, the Court held that “further judicial incarceration will not serve any purpose.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the bail application and directed the petitioner to be released on bail subject to strict conditions. The conditions imposed include:
- Execution of a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of the like sum.
- The petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
- The petitioner shall not contact the victim or her family members directly or indirectly.
- The petitioner shall not enter the revenue districts of Thrissur and Palakkad for six months, except for appearing in court.
- The petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.
The Court concluded by stating that if any conditions are violated, the investigating officer is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.
Case Details
Case Title: Sreenath K.S. vs State of Kerala & Another
Case No.: Bail Appl. No. 14542 of 2025
Bench: Justice Jobin Sebastian
