Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Astrologer Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Minor Girl On Pretext Of Conducting 'Exorcism'

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed:

“A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation against the applicant is very serious, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. The available medical records would show that bite marks were seen on the lips of the minor victim. The victim has narrated the entire incident in the FIS. I see no reason to disbelieve the same. That apart, the blood stains belonging to the victim were recovered from the place of occurrence along with her bloodstained dress. It is true that the final report has already been filed. However, considering the seriousness of the allegation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.”

The prosecution allegation was that the victim, a girl of 16 years, accompanied by her mother visited the astrology centre run by the accused and while there, the accused told that the victim was afflicted by an evil spirit, which can be removed only by certain special rituals.

It is further alleged that the victim was taken by the accused into a separate room on the pretext of exorcism and that he asked the victim to remove her dress for the ritual. The prosecution alleges that the victim refused to comply with the demand of the accused and thereafter, he assaulted her and attempted to commit sexual assault.

He is accused of the offences punishable under Sections 64(1) [Rape], 74 [Of criminal force and assault against woman], 75(1)(i) [Sexual harassment], 76 [Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe], 115(2) [Voluntarily causing hurt] and 118(1) [Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(b) [Penetrative sexual assault], 4(1) [Punishment for penetrative sexual assault], 7 [Sexual assault] and 8 [Punishment for sexual assault] of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that there were discrepancies in the statements given by the victim and that her lips were injured when she hit a wall while running away. He also pointed out that the Final Report has been filed in the case already.

However, the Court was not inclined to grant bail since the allegations were serious and there were prima facie materials pointing to his guilt. Thus, it dmissed the bail application.

Case No: BA No. 2193 of 2026

Case Title: Rajan Babu @ Murari Thantri v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 271

Counsel for the petitioner: Vishnu Bhuvanendran, B. Anusree, Noyal Johny, Joel Chalamana, Asif Irfan

Counsel for the respondent: M.C. Ashi - Sr. Public Prosecutor

Click to Read/Download Order