Bail applications lacking mandatory disclosures on past pleas and criminal antecedents will not be numbered, Kerala High Court directs

B.A. No. 4806 of 2026 concerned Crime No. 49/2026 of Valapattanam Police Station, in which Paramasivam was the sole accused of offences under Section 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and Sections 9(m) read with 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”). The prosecution alleged that, on 22 January 2026, the applicant sexually harassed an 11-year-old girl by tightly holding her stomach with sexual intent. He was remanded to judicial custody on 23 January 2026

B.A. No. 4925 of 2026 concerned Crime No. 734/2026 of Chittur Police Station, in which Siraj Vazhayi @ Saji Thaneerkattil was the sole accused of offences under Section 75(1)(i) of the BNS and Sections 7 read with 8 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the applicant induced a 16-year-old girl to come to a rented house, threatened and sexually assaulted her under the pretext of prayer. He was remanded to judicial custody on 21 July 2026

The applicants asserted their innocence and contended that no material connected them with the alleged offences. The State opposed bail, relying on the seriousness and intentional nature of the alleged acts

The Court also noted that the applicant in B.A. No. 4806 of 2026 had criminal antecedents, including pending cases that had not been disclosed in the bail application

In B.A. No. 4925 of 2026, the applicant had previously filed B.A. No. 4685 of 2026, which was dismissed on merits on 20 August 2026. The subsequent application, filed ten days later, failed to disclose the earlier application and inaccurately stated that no other regular bail application had been filed

Whether, having regard to the seriousness of the alleged offences, the prima facie material, the applicants’ custody, and the surrounding circumstances, the applicants were entitled to regular bail at that stage of the proceedings?

Whether the applicants’ failure to disclose earlier bail proceedings, criminal antecedents, and pending criminal cases violated the mandatory disclosure requirements laid down in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. and Others and the Kerala High Court’s Official Memorandum dated 13 March 2026?

Whether further directions were necessary to ensure compliance with the mandatory disclosure requirements in future bail applications?

The Court applied the provisions of Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act governing sexual offences against children

In deciding bail, the Court considered the seriousness and gravity of the accusations, the prima facie case, the alleged complicity of the applicants, and the relevant surrounding circumstances

It relied principally on Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 188, which requires every bail applicant to disclose, by affidavit, material particulars including criminal antecedents, coercive processes, previous bail applications, and pending bail proceedings.

The Court also applied Official Memorandum No. HCKL/9590/2025-DI-1 dated 13 March 2026, which prescribes disclosure of FIR particulars, custody details, trial status, antecedents, previous bail applications, and coercive processes in bail applications

The Court found that the allegations in both cases were serious and, on a prima facie assessment of the case diaries, indicated intentional and premeditated criminal conduct

In B.A. No. 4806 of 2026, the applicant’s criminal antecedents weighed against the grant of bail.

More significantly, the Court found that he had failed to disclose pending criminal cases: although the application asserted that the earlier cases were not pending, the Investigating Officer confirmed that final reports had been filed and that the cases were pending before the Magistrate Court

In B.A. No. 4925 of 2026, the applicant had filed an earlier bail application that had been dismissed on merits only ten days before the present application. His failure to disclose that proceeding, coupled with the contrary statement that no previous bail application had been filed, amounted to a clear violation of the disclosure obligation mandated in Zeba Khan and the High Court memorandum

The Court therefore treated the applications as having been filed in patent disregard of the prescribed procedural requirements, in addition to independently finding that the gravity of the alleged offences and the prima facie material did not justify release on bail

It held that the applicants were not entitled to bail at that stage because of the seriousness of the alleged offences, the prima facie case, the applicants’ complicity, and, in the case of Paramasivam, his criminal antecedents

The Court further held that both applications violated the mandatory disclosure requirements concerning previous bail applications, criminal antecedents, and pending proceedings

The Court reiterated that the requirements in Zeba Khan and the Official Memorandum dated 13 March 2026 must be strictly followed in all bail applications before the High Court, Magistrate Courts, and Sessions Courts.

It directed that bail applications lacking the prescribed disclosures should not be numbered and directed the Registry, with the assistance of the IT Directorate, to modify the scrutiny module accordingly. A copy of the order was also directed to be circulated to all criminal courts in the State