Kerala HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Reporter TV Editors In POCSO Case, Says 'Inappropriate Questions' To Child Should Have Been Avoided

Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan observed that prime facie, while the allegations did not constitute a criminal offence under the POSCO Act, the Court stated that the reporters asked the child inappropriate questions which could have been avoided.

“I am of the prime facie opinion that these conversations may not constitute any criminal offence, but it is inappropriate questions which ought to have been avoided, especially by the Reporters of a channel. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioners can be released on bail. I make it clear that this observation is only for considering this bail application. The investigating officer is free to investigate the matter, untrammelled by any observations in this. Allowed.”

On January 20, the Court had granted them interim anticipatory bail.

As per the prosecution, the duo made distasteful comments about a participant, aged 12 years, in the State School Arts Festival. For context, the editors had a conversation among themselves during the Kalolsavam (an Art festival) where Arun Kumar pointed towards the manavatti (bride) of one of the oppana (dance) team and asked, “Did you see that Oppana girl again?” Reportedly, the video also includes comments like “You look good” to the girl accompanied by a romantic song.

The petitioners had submitted that it was a tele-skit done with the permission of the child, her parents and teacher and that there was no sexual intent to constitute an offence under Section 11(i) of the POCSO Act.

The Public Prosecutor stated that notices have been issued under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS and that there is no intention to arrest. It was submitted that there is no apprehension of arrest either.

Advocate Krishna Raj moved an intervening application in the bail application of the petitioners. The Court had enquired about the authority of a third party to file an intervening application in the bail application of the Petitioners (accused).

Advocate Krishna Raj, on behalf of the third party, submitted that he has also filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 11 and 12 of the POSCO Act. It was argued that the petitioners asked indecent questions in a romantic manner to a 12-year-old girl warranting prosecution under the POCSO Act. It was stated that such indecent questions were asked to increase the TRP of their channel which should not be permitted.

The Court dismissed the intervening application and orally said, “How can you intervene in a bail application of the accused…. May be inappropriate, but what is the criminal offence here..”

Case Title: Arun Kumar K. and Another v State of Kerala

Case No: BA 778/ 2025 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 80

Click here to Read/Download Order