Kerala High Court
Muralidharakuruppu@ Balan vs State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A.No.9697 of 2025 1
2025:KER:65001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 3RD BHADRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 9697 OF 2025
CRIME NO.644/2025 OF Kodumon Police Station, Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MURALIDHARAKURUPPU@ BALAN, AGED 72 YEARS
PALAVILAYIL VEEDU, MALLIKA MURI, TATA PO,
PANDALAM, THEKKAKARA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689501
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.VISAL AJAYAN
SMT.A.SREEPRIYA
SHRI.FRANCIS THENAMPARAMBIL
SHRI.SANDEEP S.
RESPONDENT/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
SMT. SREEJA V., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.9697 of 2025 2
2025:KER:65001
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A.No.9697 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’).
2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.644 of 2025
of Kodumon Police Station, Pathanamthitta. registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 351(2) and 296 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8, 7, 17, 16, 12 and
11(iii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. According to the prosecution, the accused, who is the
grandfather of the victim, had with sexual intention, showed
pornographic videos on a mobile phone to the victim and his minor
brother and instigated them to imitate the contents in the video
and touched the penis of the victim and assaulted him with a
walking stick and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as
B.A.No.9697 of 2025 3
2025:KER:65001
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused and that the
incident as alleged had never occurred and, therefore, he may be
granted anticipatory bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application and submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary.
7. Petitioner is alleged to have shown pornographic videos on
his mobile phone to the victim. Petitioner is also alleged to have
touched the penis of the victim and threatened him and also
assaulted him with a walking stick. Though the allegations are
serious, it is noticed that there are matrimonial disputes pending
between the parents of the victim. The wife of the petitioner had
even obtained an order under Section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in M.C.No.68 of 2020. In
the aforesaid case, the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Adoor, had
directed the parents of the victim not to commit any acts of
domestic violence and also restricted them from entering into the
B.A.No.9697 of 2025 4
2025:KER:65001
house of the petitioner’s wife.
8. Considering the nature of allegations petitioner, who is
aged 73 years, is alleged to have shown pornographic videos to his
grandchildren and also caught hold of his penis does not inspire
confidence in the light of the matrimonial disputes pending and
other disputes referred to above. The Investigating Officer has also
identified the existence of matrimonial disputes between the
parents of the victim as well as the other disputes between the
petitioner’s wife and the daughter-in-law.
9. Having regard to the above circumstances, I am
satisfied that subjecting the petitioner to custodial interrogation
would be detrimental. It is also seen from Annexure A3 that
petitioner had already suffered two cardiac arrests, apart from
suffering from other age related ailments. In view of the above, I
am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
not necessary, however, he must subject himself to interrogation.
10. In Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of
Delhi) and Another, 2020 (5) SCC 1, it was held that while
B.A.No.9697 of 2025 5
2025:KER:65001
considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought
to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and
gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the
facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion
and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are
all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion
of the court.
11. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory of
Chandigarh, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 274], it has been held that a
mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for
anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not
be sufficient and that the State would have to show or indicate
more than prima facie case as to why custodial interrogation of the
accused is required for the purpose of investigation.
12. In the facts and circumstances arising in the case, this
Court is of the view that though the allegations are serious in
nature, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and
he is entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail.
B.A.No.9697 of 2025 6
2025:KER:65001
Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following
conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer
on 09.09.2025 and shall subject himself to interrogation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer
proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, he shall be
released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.
(c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer
as and when required and shall also co-operate with the
investigation.
(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence
the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.
(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while
he is on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any
modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the
B.A.No.9697 of 2025 7
2025:KER:65001
jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such
applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this
Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
sp/25/08/2025
B.A.No.9697 of 2025 8
2025:KER:65001
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9697/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1
ADOOR IN MC NO.68/2020 DATED 22.10.2022
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE
WIFE OF THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT POLICE
CHIEF, PATHANAMTHITTA, DATED 16.07.2025