The Kerala High Court on Tuesday declined to grant bail to a 52-year-old man accused of harassing a woman advocate inside a private bus in Palakkad. The courtroom, though not crowded, was attentive as Justice K. Babu heard arguments on why the accused had directly approached the High Court instead of the Sessions Court. By the end of the hearing, the judge made it clear that the allegations, at least at this stage, were too serious to warrant interference.
Background
The bail application was filed by P.S. Krishnadas, a resident of Palakkad, who is an accused in Crime No. 1061 of 2025 registered at Palakkad Town North Police Station. According to the prosecution, the incident took place on September 9, 2025, around 6.50 pm, when the complainant boarded a private bus named “Kandath Motors” from the Stadium Bus Stand.
Read also:- J&K High Court Declines Pension Relief to Sainik School Mansbal Staff, Says No Legal Right Without
The police claim that the accused boarded the same bus, sat on the rear seat, and allegedly attempted to take photographs of the complainant. When questioned, he is said to have made sexually coloured remarks and requested sexual favours. The offences have been booked under Sections 78 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 119(a) and 119(b) of the Kerala Police Act.
An unusual aspect of the case was the route taken by the accused. Instead of moving the Sessions Court for bail, he approached the High Court directly under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. His counsel argued that since the complainant is a practising lawyer at the Palakkad Bar Association, no local lawyer was willing to represent him, creating what was described as an “exceptional circumstance”.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Refuses to Revive Criminal Case by Company Director, Upholds Discharge of Ex
Court’s Observations
Justice K. Babu was not convinced that the situation justified bypassing the regular legal process. After hearing the petitioner’s counsel, the lawyer appearing for the complainant, and the Public Prosecutor, the court examined the case diary produced by the prosecution.
The bench noted that the records prima facie showed demands for sexual favours and the use of sexually coloured remarks. “I have gone through the Case Diary,” the judge observed, adding that it clearly indicated conduct that could not be brushed aside lightly at the bail stage.
The court also rejected the argument that the legal ingredients of the alleged offences were missing. On the question of invoking the High Court’s inherent powers, the bench remarked that such powers are meant for rare situations and not as a shortcut. In plain terms, the court indicated that seriousness of allegations matters, and extraordinary relief cannot become routine.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Refuses Maintenance to Woman After Decade-Long Live-In, Says Marriage
Decision
Holding that the allegations were grave in nature and that the petitioner was not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, Justice K. Babu dismissed the bail application. The order concluded with a simple but firm line: the bail application stands dismissed, leaving the accused to pursue remedies available under regular procedure.
Case Title: P.S. Krishnadas v. State of Kerala & Others
Case No.: Bail Application No. 12074 of 2025
Case Type: Bail Application (under Section 482, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)
Decision Date: 04 November 2025
