New Delhi, Dec 13 The Supreme Court has directed that no coercive action be taken against a Kerala-based karate instructor accused under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
While issuing notice on his special leave petition (SLP) challenging the denial of anticipatory bail, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe sought a response from the state of Kerala and the complainant.
Making the notice returnable on February 18, 2026, the apex court granted interim protection from arrest to the petitioner.
"Subject to the petitioner, Sunil Kumar, joining and co-operating with the investigation... he shall not be arrested till the next hearing," it said.
As per the top court's order, the interim relief is linked to the FIR registered at Vadakara Police Station in Kozhikode Rural district for offences punishable under Sections 354A(1)(i), 354B and 354D of the IPC and Sections 9(l) read with Sections 10 and 9(o) of the POCSO Act.
The Justice Kumar-led Bench further directed the petitioner to strictly abide by the conditions stipulated under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The SLP filed before the Supreme Court, through advocate Vipin Nair, challenged the Kerala High Court's order dated November 4, 2025, which had dismissed the petitioner's anticipatory bail plea, holding that a prima facie case was made out against him.
The petitioner, a 46-year-old karate instructor and National Secretary of Kenyuryu Karate India, has alleged that the POCSO provisions have been misused in a “motivated and belated” complaint lodged by a former student. He claimed that the complaint was filed nearly five years after the alleged incidents that occurred between 2018 and 2020.
The SLP contended that despite the alleged period of incidents, the complainant continued to maintain cordial relations with the petitioner and even publicly praised him in 2022, describing him as a “father figure”.
It further argued that professional rivalry and personal animosity arose after the complainant left the petitioner’s karate centre and joined a rival club. Relying on past Supreme Court rulings to underline the impact of criminal accusations on the reputation of teachers, the petitioner argued that custodial interrogation was not necessary given his cooperation with the investigation and absence of criminal antecedents.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor