Court directs strict adherence to Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. disclosure framework; bail applications failing compliance will not be entertained or numbered
In a significant ruling delivered on September 10, 2026, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Kauser Edappagath, dismissed two bail applications filed by accused persons in serious sexual offence cases. The court underscored the imperative need for strict compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. (2026 SCC Online SC 188) and an Official Memorandum issued by the Kerala High Court on March 13, 2026, mandating full and truthful disclosure of all material facts in bail applications.
The two cases - Bail Application No. 4806/2026 involving Paramasivam, and Bail Application No. 4925/2026 involving Siraj Vazhayil @ Saji Thaneerkattil - concerned allegations of sexual harassment and aggravated sexual assault on minor girls. The court observed that the applicants had suppressed critical information in their bail pleas, including prior bail applications and criminal antecedents, thereby violating the mandatory disclosure requirements laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court.
Justice Edappagath noted that the Supreme Court in Zeba Khan had mandated that every bail application must be accompanied by an affidavit disclosing all material particulars such as FIR details, police station, sections invoked, maximum punishment prescribed, custody details, stage of trial, criminal antecedents, previous bail applications (with outcomes and copies of orders), and any coercive processes like warrants or proclamation as an offender. The Kerala High Court's Official Memorandum echoed these requirements and instructed all criminal courts in the state to insist upon these disclosures before entertaining bail applications.
In the instant cases, the court found that the applicants had notably suppressed prior bail applications and criminal records. For example, Siraj Vazhayil's present bail application claimed no earlier bail applications, despite a previous one being dismissed on merits just ten days prior. Paramasivam failed to disclose eight pending criminal cases and prior bail rejections. Such suppression was held to be a patent violation of the Supreme Court's mandate and the Kerala High Court's administrative directions.
Considering the grave nature of the offences, the prima facie evidence of premeditated criminal acts, and the applicants' disregard for procedural mandates, the court declined to grant bail. Further, the court directed the High Court Registry, with assistance from the IT Directorate, to modify the machine-based bail scrutiny module to ensure that bail applications lacking the prescribed disclosures are not even numbered or entertained.
The judgment serves as a stern reminder to litigants and legal practitioners about the non-negotiable nature of transparency in criminal bail proceedings and aims to streamline the process ensuring integrity and uniformity in bail adjudication across Kerala.
Bottom Line:
Bail applications filed in disregard of mandatory disclosure requirements laid down by the Supreme Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. (2026 SCC Online SC 188) and the Official Memorandum issued by the High Court of Kerala cannot be entertained.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 75(2) and Section 75(1)(i) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Sections 9(m), 10, 7, and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Supreme Court directions in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. (2026 SCC Online SC 188)
Paramasivam v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2979249
