Kerala HC Dismisses Two POCSO Bail Pleas, Flags Systemic Suppression of Criminal History in Bail Applications

Dismissing bail applications in two unconnected POCSO cases, Kerala High Court found both accused had concealed criminal antecedents and prior bail orders, directing courts statewide to refuse numbering non-compliant applications.

On 10 September 2026, Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, sitting singly at the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, disposed of two otherwise unconnected bail applications together — not because the cases were related, but because both had been filed in open disregard of the Supreme Court’s directions in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. and Others (2026 SCC OnLine SC 188) and a Kerala High Court administrative circular issued pursuant to those directions. In both cases, the accused had suppressed material information: one concealed a prior bail order passed by this very Court just ten days earlier, while the other hid a string of criminal antecedents that the Sessions Court had expressly noted. Both bail applications were dismissed on merits, and the Court used the occasion to issue directions binding on all criminal courts in the State.

The Two Cases Before the Court

Bail Application No. 4806 of 2026 arose from Crime No. 49/2026 registered at Valapattanam Police Station, Kannur District. The sole accused, Paramasivam, aged 36 years, a resident of Thirunelveli in Tamil Nadu, faced charges under Section 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 9(m) read with 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution alleged that on 22 January 2026 at around 18:30 hours, while an 11-year-old girl was walking along a road near a shop called “Habeeb Bake N Cool” to attend a marriage function, the accused approached from the opposite direction and tightly held her stomach with sexual intent. Paramasivam was remanded to judicial custody on 23 January 2026.

Bail Application No. 4925 of 2026 arose from Crime No. 734/2026 of Chittur Police Station, Palakkad District. The accused, Siraj Vazhayil alias Saji Thaneerkattil, aged 42 years, a resident of Malappuram, faced charges under Section 75(1)(i) of the BNS and Section 8 read with Section 7 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that on 18 July 2026 at around 20:00 hours, the accused induced a 16-year-old girl to believe she was possessed by a ghost, called her to a rented house at Manalthod where he was residing, locked the survivor and her family members from outside, took her into a room under the pretext of prayers, threatened her, and subjected her to aggravated sexual assault. Siraj was remanded to judicial custody on 21 July 2026.

What the Supreme Court and the High Court Had Already Required

In Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. and Others, the Supreme Court directed that every bail applicant is under a solemn obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents, the existence of non-bailable warrants, and any declaration as a proclaimed offender, supported by an affidavit. The Court further directed that every bail application must specify details of earlier bail applications already decided and any applications pending in any court; if none are pending, a clear statement to that effect must be filed. Copies of orders in earlier applications, where available, must be produced.

Following that judgment, the High Court of Kerala issued Official Memorandum No. HCKL/9590/2025-DI-1 dated 13 March 2026, instructing all courts exercising criminal jurisdiction in the State to insist on a defined disclosure framework in every bail application. The framework covers six categories: case details including FIR number, date, police station, and sections invoked; custody and procedural compliance including date of arrest and total custody undergone; status of trial including the stage of proceedings and witnesses; criminal antecedents; details of previous bail applications including court, case number, and outcome; and coercive processes such as whether a non-bailable warrant was issued or the accused was declared a proclaimed offender.

Suppression Found in Both Applications

The Court examined both applications against these requirements and found clear violations in each.

In BA No. 4925/2026, Siraj had earlier filed BA No. 4685/2026 before this Court. That application was dismissed on merits on 20 August 2026. The present application was filed on 30 August 2026 — merely ten days later. Despite this, in Ground ‘J’ of the present application, the accused categorically stated that he had not filed any other regular bail application before this Court or any other court. The earlier dismissal order was not disclosed.

In BA No. 4806/2026, the Sessions Court, Thalassery, had dismissed the earlier bail plea taking into account the accused’s criminal antecedents and had recorded that he was involved in eight criminal cases. The present application before the High Court suppressed this entirely. In Ground ‘D’ of the application, Paramasivam asserted that none of the criminal cases referred to in the Sessions Court order was presently pending. The Court called for a report from the Investigating Officer, who confirmed that investigations in Crime No. 47/2026 of Valapattanam Police Station and Crime No. 41/2026 of Kannur City Police Station had concluded, final reports had been filed, and the cases were pending as CC No. 482/2026 and CC No. 194/2026 respectively before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur, with the applicant having entered appearance in both.

Merits and the Court's Reasoning

On merits, the Court was not persuaded by either applicant. Both had argued they were innocent and falsely implicated, and that no material connected them to the alleged crimes. The Senior Public Prosecutor, Sri V. Vinay, countered that the incidents were intentional criminal acts and bail ought not to be granted at this stage.

A perusal of the case diaries in both matters led the Court to conclude that the accusations were serious and prima facie disclosed premeditated criminal conduct. In BA No. 4806/2026, the criminal antecedents of the applicant were an additional factor weighing against release. Taking into account the nature of the crimes, the gravity of the offences, the complicity of the applicants, and the overall facts and circumstances, the Court held that neither applicant could be released on bail at this stage.

The Court then turned to the broader procedural concern. It observed that in the majority of bail applications filed before this Court and before trial courts, the mandatory directions in Zeba Khan are seldom complied with. The administrative memorandum of 13 March 2026 had not produced the intended results. The Court recorded that compliance had been “the exception rather than the rule.”

Statewide Directions on Bail Scrutiny

The Court reiterated that the mandatory directions in Zeba Khan and the Official Memorandum of 13 March 2026 shall be strictly adhered to in all bail applications filed before the High Court or before any jurisdictional Magistrate or Sessions Court, at any stage of proceedings.

A specific structural direction followed: bail applications that do not contain the requisite disclosures shall not be numbered. Since bail applications before the High Court are subjected to machine-based scrutiny, the Registry was directed to work with the IT Directorate of the Court to make necessary modifications to the bail scrutiny module, so that compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions is verified before any bail application is assigned a number.

The Registry was further directed to forward a copy of the order to all courts in the State dealing with criminal cases.

Order

Both BA No. 4806 of 2026 and BA No. 4925 of 2026 were dismissed. The Registry was directed to modify the machine-based bail scrutiny module in consultation with the IT Directorate to enforce disclosure compliance before numbering. A copy of the order is to be circulated to all criminal courts across Kerala.