Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court, while granting bail to a man, ruled that allegations of sexual assault made by a woman cannot be presumed to be the gospel truth and that the police must investigate both the complainant’s and accused’s versions before filing charge sheets. The court further observed that police officers should not hesitate to take action against complainants who file false cases.

The court, presided over by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, emphasised that criminal investigations must be impartial and not conducted solely based on the complainant’s statements. It observed: “Merely because the de facto complainant is a lady, there is no presumption that, in all cases, her versions are gospel truth, and the police can proceed based on her statement without considering the case of the accused.”

Expressing concern on the rising number of false cases alleging sexual assault, the court remarked, “Nowadays, there is a tendency to implicate innocent people in criminal cases with serious allegations of sexual assault. If the police find that the allegations of such women against men are false, they can very well take action against the complainants also.”

The bail application was filed by the accused/ petitioner, charged under Section 75 (sexual harassment) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The case arose from a complaint filed by a female employee who alleged that, on December 20, 2024, the petitioner, working as a manager of the company where she worked, grabbed her arms with sexual intent.

Denying the allegations, the petitioner contended that the complaint was false and retaliatory. It was argued that the complainant had been dismissed from her job due to inefficiency and non-performance and that, on the day of her termination, she had verbally abused him and threatened to take action against him. To support his claim, the petitioner submitted an earlier complaint filed with the police on January 14, 2025, in which he reported the complainant’s threats. Additionally, he produced an audio clip allegedly containing a conversation where the complainant threatened him saying  “they would soon realize what she is capable of”.

Opposing the bail application, the prosecution argued that there was no reason to disbelieve the complainant’s allegations and that the accusations were serious.

The court stressed that while complaints of sexual assault must be taken seriously, there is no legal presumption that every such allegation is true simply because the complainant is a woman.

The court also cautioned against the “unilateral investigation” of only the complainant’s side and urged the police to be alert and vigilant while investigation, noting that “The damages caused to a citizen because of false implication cannot be compensated by payment of money alone. His integrity, position in the society, reputation, etc, can be ruined by a single false complaint.”

The court warned that the practice of registration of false cases leads to wrongful prosecutions and unnecessary burdens on the judiciary. “It is the duty of the police to separate the chaff from the grain, before submitting final reports in criminal cases,” the court said.

Referring to Supreme Court precedents in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021),  the court reiterated the principle of  “grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.”

Considering the delayed complaint, lack of investigation into the petitioner’s prior complaint, and the evidence submitted, the court granted bail to the petitioner.

Cause Title: Noushad K v State of Kerala [B.A.No.2241 of 2025]

Appearance: Advocates R. Anas Muhammed Shamnad, T.U. Sujith Kumar, C.C. Anoop, Thareek T.S., Hamdan Mansoor K., and K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan appeared for the petitioner, while Sr. PP-Sri. Hrithwik C.S. represented the state.