Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court recently rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a 58-year-old lawyer, Noushad, accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl after forcing her to consume liquor.

A Single judge bench comprising Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, observed: “The allegation is that the petitioner, who is a lawyer gave alcohol to the victim and thereafter, committed penetrative sexual intercourse with a minor girl. If the facts are correct, it is a shame to the profession. Such a person is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court.”

The prosecution alleged that the accused invited the minor girl aged 15 years, who was then studying in 9th standard, and her aunt to a hotel room in Kozhenchery in 2022, where he allegedly forced the girl to consume alcohol and later raped her. The victim alleged that the accused continued to abuse her over time with her aunt’s knowledge.

The accused was charged under Sections 376(2)(j) (committing rape on woman incapable of giving consent), 376(2)(n) (committing rape repeatedly on the same woman), 376(3) (rape on a woman under sixteen years of age), 377 (unnatural offences), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 75 (cruelty to child) & 77 (giving intoxicating liquor to child) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ('JJ Act') and Sections 4(2), 3(a)(b) (penetrative sexual assault), 6, 5(l)(p)(i) (aggravated penetrative sexual assault), 7, 8 (sexual assault), 9(l)(p), 10 (aggravated sexual assault), 11(v), 12 (sexual harassment), 16, 17 (abetment of an offence) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences  (POCSO) Act, 2012.

Denying all allegations against him, the accused contended that the case was fabricated to tarnish his reputation and that the victim and her family had previously filed similar complaints for financial gain. The accused further highlighted the judgement acquitting the accused in which the same girl was the victim, arguing that this is a fit case in which this Court has to grant anticipatory bail.

However, the public prosecutor opposed the bail plea, arguing that the evidence on record clearly established the accused's role in the crime and that releasing him on bail would pose a threat to the victim's safety.

After examining the case diary and reports submitted by advocate Parvathi A Menon, the Project Coordinator of the Victim Rights Centre (VRC), KeLSA, the court said a prima facie case was made out against the accused. The court also found that the anticipatory bail application was not maintainable owing to a legal bar in light of Section 482(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, as the rape victim was a minor.

The court further stated, “if the facts narrated by the prosecution and the victim are correct, it is unfortunate because the petitioner is from a noble profession. After going through the statement of the victim (if it is correct), a human being cannot complete reading it without tears in their eyes because the allegation is that the petitioner abused a minor girl, without her consent.”

The court also noted that the victim is now focused on her education and expressed her ambition to become a Forensic Surgeon.  “The entire society is with her, fingers crossed, to achieve her dream,” the court remarked while dismissing the bail application.

 

Cause Title: Noushad v State of Kerala [BAIL APPL. NO. 1777 OF 2025]

Appearance: Senior Advocate P Vijayabhanu, and Advocates S. Rajeev, V. V. Vinay, M. S. Aneer, Sarath K. P., Anilkumar C. R., and K. S. Kiran Krishnan (for the petitioner); Senior Public Prosecutor K. A. Noushad (for the State).