Kerala court says prima facie evidence links director Ranjith to sexual assault, age & medical condition considered for bail

Kochi: In a significant observation in the sexual assault case against Malayalam director Ranjith, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam, noted that there were “prima facie materials” linking him to the alleged offences, even as it upheld the constitutional principle that “bail is the rule and jail an exception” while granting him bail.

The court, presided by magistrate Usha L, clarified its stance early in the 14-page order, stating “at this stage, there appear to be prima facie materials connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences; however, this court refrains from entering into the merits of the accusations or the veracity of the rival versions”.

The court emphasised that the current consideration was confined strictly to whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the nature of the accusations, the severity of punishment, and the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court. The bail was granted after hearing the fierce arguments raised by the prosecution and Ranjith’s lawyers.

The case stems from an incident alleged to have occurred on January 30, 2026. According to the prosecution, Ranjith sexually assaulted an actress inside a caravan parked at a shooting location of his film near Aspin Wall House in Fort Kochi, thereby outraging her modesty.

The Assistant Public Prosecutor Namitha Jathavedan vehemently opposed the bail, arguing that the survivor has not yet recovered her mental health and remains under medical and counselling support. The prosecution argued that the director, holding “high economic, social and political influence”, posed a significant risk of intimidating witnesses as many of whom are dependent on him, and tampering with evidence.

However, advocate Isac Sanjay, appearing for Ranjith, countered by labelling the case a product of “enmity and professional rivalries”. A key pillar of the defence was the two-month delay in filing the complaint, noting that the survivor did not raise the issue at the time despite the presence of approximately 250 people at the location. He also claimed that the case was a result of professional rivalry and political enmity. The director had cut short the survivor's scenes in the film due to poor performance, leading to a public exchange of “harsh words”, which the defence claims is the true reason for the complaint.

The defence also raised a significant procedural argument regarding Ranjith’s time in Special Investigation Team (SIT) custody. They pointed out that while the police obtained custody for three days, he was returned within 24 hours under the guise of non-cooperation. “Merely because the petitioner did not confess, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not cooperating with the investigation,” Ranjith’s lawyer submitted.

Furthermore, the defence lawyer highlighted that the investigating agency failed to issue a notice under Section 35 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before the arrest as directed by the Supreme Court, making the arrest an exception to the rule.

He also argued that it is impossible to confirm the allegations via scientific methods, as no medical certificate exists for the “bad touch” allegations.

The court took serious note of Ranjith’s medical history submitted by his lawyer. At 62, the director has undergone a liver transplantation and spine surgery. The court accepted that he falls under the category of “sick and infirm” as envisaged under Section 480 of the BNSS.

The court observed that the charges against Ranjith carry maximum sentences of less than five years. Because the investigation had reached a stage where custodial interrogation was no longer indispensable, the court ruled that his continued judicial custody is not warranted.

The court also said it is “mindful of the need to send a strong message that offences against women are to be taken seriously. At the same time, the court said that the presumption of innocence and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution mean that a person should be kept in custody before trial only when absolutely necessary.

While granting the bail, the court imposed ten stringent conditions, including a bond of ₹1,00,000 with two solvent sureties. Ranjith must appear before the investigating officer every Monday between 10 am and 1 pm for three months or until the final report is filed.

He is strictly prohibited from contacting the survivor or her family via phone, social media, or intermediaries. He is also barred from entering the shooting location or any premises where the survivor works or resides.

The court also stated that Ranjith must surrender his passport within seven days and cannot leave Ernakulam District without court permission and any violation of these conditions will result in the automatic cancellation of bail.