1. This petition has been filed by the first and second accused in Crime No. 828/2026 of Sreekaryam Police Station, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 296(b) and 118(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, seeking modification of a condition imposed upon them in the order dated 28.07.2026 in B.A. No. 2488/2026, whereby they were granted anticipatory bail.

2. The prosecution allegation, in brief, is as follows:

The first accused is the biological mother of an eleven-year-old minor girl, and the second accused is her stepfather. Both are legally bound to ensure the care and protection of the minor child. It is alleged that they ill-treated and assaulted the child. On 15.07.2026, at about 8.30 a.m., the first accused allegedly beat the minor child on her hand using the cable of a mobile phone charger and uttered obscene words against her. It is further alleged that, from 2023 onwards, the first and second accused had assaulted the victim and that the second accused had caught hold of her neck, beaten her on the head, kicked her and compelled her to do household work. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the aforesaid crime was registered against them on account of a misconception of facts. According to the petitioners, they are husband and wife and their marriage is a second marriage for both of them. The first petitioner has two children from her first marriage, while the second petitioner has one child. After their marriage, the petitioners claim to have been taking proper care of the minor child, who is the victim in the present case, and encouraging her in her studies as well as extracurricular activities. It is submitted that, as the minor child was found to be using a mobile phone excessively, the petitioners warned her and objected to her excessive use of the phone. Thereafter, the child allegedly became agitated and crawled on the floor, resulting in a red mark on her hand. On noticing the said red mark, her school teacher reported the matter to the Child Welfare Committee. The Committee took the child into its custody and placed her in a child care institution named 'Ashraya', Sreekaryam. Subsequently, the police registered the present crime and the petitioners obtained anticipatory bail as per Annexure A2 order. Pursuant to the proceedings initiated before the Child Welfare Committee, Thiruvananthapuram, the Committee directed that the minor child be released to the custody of her mother, the first petitioner. However, subsequently, the child was again directed to be produced before the Child Welfare Committee on 18.08.2026. Accordingly, the petitioners produced the child before the third respondent on 18.08.2026. Thereafter, the child was taken into the custody of the Child Welfare Committee, which placed her in a child care institution, namely, 'Ashraya Bala Bhavan', Thiruvananthapuram.

4. According to the petitioners, the child is not comfortable or happy in the said child care institution and is desirous of staying with her mother. It is contended that, being a girl child of tender age, she requires the care, attention and supervision of her biological mother. However, owing to the fifth condition imposed in the bail order, whereby the petitioners were restrained from contacting the minor child, they are unable to receive the custody of the child and take care of her. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking modification of condition No. 5 in the order dated 28.07.2026 in B.A. No. 2488/2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, so as to enable the petitioners to have custody of the child, particularly the first petitioner, being her biological mother.

5. Heard Sri. T.K. Ananda Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Smt. Megha K. Xavier, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners advanced arguments in tune with the averments contained in the petition. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor did not oppose the petition and fairly submitted that, having regard to the welfare and best interests of the child, it would be appropriate to consider releasing the child to the custody of her biological mother.

7. From the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the materials available on record, it is discernible that the first petitioner is the biological mother of the victim child and the second petitioner is her stepfather. As evident from the records, a crime has been registered against the petitioners alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 296(b) and 118(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The main allegation in the said case is that the first petitioner, who is under a legal obligation to care for and protect the minor child, had assaulted her and that the petitioners had subjected the child to ill-treatment.

8. Evidently, the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, as per order dated 28.07.2026 in B.A. No. 2488/2026, subject to stringent conditions. Among the said conditions, condition No. 5 stipulated that the applicants shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or any of the prosecution witnesses, either directly or through any other person, or in any other manner attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence any witness or any other person connected with the investigation. It is an admitted position that, following the registration of the crime, the custody of the child was taken over by the Child Welfare Committee. Subsequently, pursuant to an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee, the child was released to the custody of her mother. Thereafter, the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail subject to the aforesaid conditions. Subsequently, the Child Welfare Committee directed the petitioners to produce the child before it, and the child was again taken into the custody of the Committee and shifted to a child care institution, namely, 'Ashraya Bala Bhavan’, Sreekaryam.

9. The petitioners now contend that the child is desirous of staying with her mother and that she is unhappy and uncomfortable in the said child care institution. While considering whether condition No. 5 imposed in the bail order requires modification so as to facilitate the handing over of the custody of the child to the first petitioner, who is her biological mother, the welfare and best interests of the child assume paramount importance. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 mandates that all decisions concerning a child shall be guided by the principle of the best interests of the child. The Act empowers the Child Welfare Committee to pass appropriate orders regarding the restoration of a child to her parents or family, with or without supervision, upon due consideration of the circumstances of the child and her wishes.

10. Keeping the above principles in mind, the facts of the present case require consideration. It can be seen that the Child Welfare Committee has already submitted a report before this Court stating that, after conducting counselling sessions and taking into consideration the circumstances of the child, the Committee had earlier permitted the child to remain with her mother for some time, subject to constant follow-up. It is further stated in the report that, pursuant to the condition contained in the order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners, all interaction between the biological mother and the child was discontinued until further orders from the competent court. Along with the said report, the Committee has also produced a written statement of the child, which reads as follows:

                

11. Having regard to the report submitted by the Child Welfare Committee and the expressed desire of the child, and bearing in mind her welfare and best interests, this Court is of the view that condition No. 5 imposed in the order granting anticipatory bail requires modification to the limited extent.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The stipulation contained in condition No. 5 of the order dated 28.07.2026 in B.A. No. 2488/2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Thiruvananthapuram, restraining the petitioners from contacting the de facto complainant is hereby lifted. The other clauses in the fifth condition shall remain intact.