Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Kerala dismissed the second regular bail application of an accused father who was charged with sexually assaulting his minor daughter under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The applicant, Shiju, was the sole accused in Crime No.354/2026 of Chalakkudy Police Station, Thrissur District. The prosecution alleged that on 10/04/2026 at about 12:30 hours, he touched the thighs of his 17-year-old daughter with intent to commit sexual assault, and that in February and March 2026, at about 1:00 a.m., he touched her breast and uttered sexually coloured remarks. He was remanded to judicial custody on 17/4/2026 and remained in custody. His first bail application had been dismissed earlier having regard to the nature of the crime, the gravity of the offence, and the relationship between the accused and the victim. In the present application, the accused contended that he was innocent and falsely implicated, and further argued that after the dismissal of the first bail application, the matter had been settled between him and the victim's mother, who had filed an affidavit expressing her willingness to grant bail and stating that the victim had no objection. The Senior Public Prosecutor opposed bail, submitting that the alleged incident was part of intentional criminal acts and that the applicant was not entitled to bail. The Court observed that the case depicted the tragic plight of a minor girl repeatedly subjected to sexual exploitation by her own father, and that the accusation prima facie disclosed a premeditated criminal act. The Court noted that the mother's affidavit did not assert that the incident did not occur; it rested solely on a subsequent settlement. The Court held that offences involving sexual assault of a minor are not compoundable, and that parents or guardians cannot legally compromise, withdraw, or express no objection to the continuation of criminal proceedings or to the grant of bail in relation to an offence of incestuous sexual assault, citing Vishnu v. State of Kerala, 2023 (3) KLT 754. Any compromise or out-of-court settlement effected by parents with the object of stifling criminal prosecution cannot receive the sanction of law and cannot override the State's duty to prosecute offences against children. Courts, in the exercise of their parens patriae jurisdiction, bear a bounden duty to safeguard the rights of minor victims of sexual assault, even where parents fail to do so. Consequently, the compromise could not be accepted, and the applicant could not be released on bail. The bail application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Regular Bail Under BNSS - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 483; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 10, 9(l), 9(n), 12, 11(i) - Accused father alleged repeated sexual assault of his 17-year-old minor daughter; first bail application dismissed due to nature and gravity of offence and relationship; second bail sought on basis of alleged settlement with mother and her no objection; Court held that bail cannot be granted on the basis of a compromise because offences are non-compoundable and settlement cannot override prosecution; Held that applicant cannot be released on bail (Paras 1-9). B) Criminal Law - Compounding of Offences - Non-Compoundable Sexual Offences Against Minor - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 10, 9(l), 9(n), 12, 11(i) - Offences involving sexual assault of a minor are not compoundable; parents or guardians cannot legally compromise, withdraw, or express no objection to continuation of criminal proceedings or grant of bail in incestuous sexual assault; any out-of-court settlement by parents with object of stifling prosecution cannot receive sanction of law; Held that compromise cannot be accepted (Paras 7-9). C) Constitutional Law - Parens Patriae Jurisdiction - Court's Duty to Protect Minor Victims - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Courts, in exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction, bear a bounden duty to safeguard rights of minor victims of sexual assault even when parents fail to do so; mother's settlement described as fence itself devouring the crop; Held that court must not allow parental compromise to override State's duty to prosecute offences against children (Paras 7-9). D) Criminal Law - Incestuous Sexual Assault - Evidentiary Value of Settlement Affidavit - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Mother's affidavit did not contend that incident did not occur, only rested on subsequent settlement; such affidavit cannot negate prima facie premeditated criminal act disclosed by victim's statement; Held that applicant cannot be released on bail based on such settlement (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant, accused of sexual assault of his minor daughter under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the alleged settlement between the accused and the victim's mother and the non-compoundable nature of the offences; and whether the mother's no objection could override the State's duty to prosecute.
Final Decision
Bail application dismissed. Applicant cannot be released on bail. Compromise by victim's mother not accepted; offences non-compoundable; court exercised parens patriae jurisdiction to protect minor victim.
Law Points
- Offences of sexual assault of a minor are not compoundable
- parents or guardians cannot compromise or withdraw prosecution for incestuous sexual assault
- courts have parens patriae duty to protect minor victims even where parents fail
- settlement by mother without denying incident cannot be basis for bail
- bail under Section 483 BNSS requires consideration of nature and gravity of offence and relationship between accused and victim
- State's duty to prosecute offences against children cannot be overridden by out-of-court settlement
