ORDER This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’). 2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.652 of 2024 of Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 D A , 376 (2)(f) , 376 (2)(n) , 376 (3) and 354 A(1)(iii) of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, Sections 4 (2) r/w Section 3 , 6 (1) r/w Section 5 (g) , 5 (l) , 5 (n) , 8 r/w Section 7 , 10 r/w Section 9 (l) , 9 (n) and 12 r/w Section 11 (iii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012, apart from Section 75 and 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ) Act, 2015. 3. According to the prosecution, on 03.06.2023, petitioner removed the dress of the survivor, who is the niece of the first accused and enabled the second accused to commit rape and penetrative sexual assault on the victim, which continued on several days till 26.08.2023. The first accused is also alleged to have shown obscene videos and even gave liquor to the survivor and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 13.07.2024 and has been in custody since then. 4. I have heard Sri. P. R. Harikumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Smt. Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that already more than 331 days have passed since the petitioner was arrested, and her continued detention is not necessary. It was pointed out that petitioner has two daughters of tender years who have no one to look after them, as her husband’s bail application has been rejected by this Court. The learned counsel also submitted that petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed upon her. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the nature of allegations against the petitioner are extremely serious and heinous, and therefore, petitioner ought not to be released on bail. It was further submitted that this is a fit case where custodial trial ought to be ordered, especially since the victim is a relative of the petitioner. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the nature of allegations against the petitioner are extremely serious and heinous, and therefore, petitioner ought not to be released on bail. It was further submitted that this is a fit case where custodial trial ought to be ordered, especially since the victim is a relative of the petitioner. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had manipulated the victim in such a manner that she was unable to even divulge the incident to her mother, and therefore, there is every possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses and hence custodial trial is required. It was further submitted that the final report has already been filed and the trial court is awaiting the Forensic Science Laboratory's report. 7. I have considered the rival contentions, and perused the Case Diary. 8. Petitioner has been in custody since July 2024. Petitioner is the first cousin of the victim. She is alleged to have assisted her husband to rape the victim and indulge in penetrative sexual assault repeatedly on several occasions. The nature of overt acts alleged against the petitioner are no doubt heinous. This Court had even rejected the bail application of the second accused, who is the husband of the petitioner, by an order dated 21.05.2025 in B.A. No.5908 of 2025. Since petitioner's husband’s bail application has already been rejected by this Court, the two minor daughters of the petitioner who are studying in the 4 th and 1 st standard remain practically as orphans without anyone available to take care of them. 9. In this context, this Court must bear in mind that the purpose of bail is neither a punitive measure, nor is it a preventive measure, as it is only intended to secure the presence of the accused person at the time of trial. The possibility of the witnesses being influenced by the accused if liberty is granted, is also a factor that should be borne in mind by the court, while considering the question of grant of bail. However, this Court cannot wholly ignore the principle that conviction before punishment is against the ethos of criminal jurisprudence. The possibility of the witnesses being influenced by the accused if liberty is granted, is also a factor that should be borne in mind by the court, while considering the question of grant of bail. However, this Court cannot wholly ignore the principle that conviction before punishment is against the ethos of criminal jurisprudence. Despite the heinous nature of offences analysed against the petitioner, the factors mentioned earlier regarding her children growing up without either of the parents, the duration of detention before punishment and also the fact that petitioner is a woman, becomes significant. 10. Women are the pivot on which the children grow. Their absence from their children can have a prejudicial impact. Law permits a differential treatment to be accorded to women in the matter of bail as evident from the proviso to section 480(1) of BNSS . Dealing with the provisions of the erstwhile Cr.P.C, the Supreme Court had observed in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another [(2022) 10 SCC51] that “in a case pertaining to women, the court is expected to show some sensitivity…" 11. With the above sensitivity required to be shown, on an appreciation of the circumstances in the instant case, it is noticed that petitioner was arrested on 13.07.2024 and has been in custody since then i.e., for the last 331 days. The long period of detention and the circumstance that the petitioner is a woman with two minor children, who are practically left with none to take care of them, compel this Court to release the petitioner on bail, despite the seriousness of the crime alleged. The apprehension of influencing the witnesses, though seems to be a possibility, appropriate conditions can be imposed to prevent such attempts. Those apprehensions by itself should not deter this court from granting bail to the petitioner, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:- (a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. (b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case. (c) Petitioner shall not enter the limits of Mannar Police Station, where the victim resides, except for the purpose of trial or for appearances before the police station. (b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case. (c) Petitioner shall not enter the limits of Mannar Police Station, where the victim resides, except for the purpose of trial or for appearances before the police station. (d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall she attempt to tamper with the evidence or contact the victim or her family members. (e) Petitioner shall not contact the victim or her family members nor any of the witnesses until conclusion of the trial. (f) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while she is on bail. (g) Petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala until conclusion of the trial. In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.