This writ appeal challenges the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 03.01.2022 in WP(C) No.5331 of 2019, which declined the relief sought by the appellant to release gold ornaments pledged as security for two agricultural gold loans. The appellant, a farmer, could not renew the loans due to crop failure and market downturn; notices threatened auction of the pledged ornaments if the accounts were not closed. When he sought closure, the bank stated it would not release the ornaments because he had another agricultural loan with a different branch. The bank relied on Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, contending a general lien over securities as security for the entire indebtedness, unless there is a contract to the contrary. The Single Judge relied on Clause 4 of the loan agreement, which declares the ornaments pledged as continuing security for present and future liabilities, and dismissed the petition. The Appellant contends that the ornaments should be released on closing the gold loan accounts and that the general lien cannot apply to pledged ornaments for a gold loan. The Division Bench, relied upon authorities including Syndicate Bank v. Vijay Kumar and Others, State Bank of India v. Deepak Malaviya, and other precedents, to hold that the bank has a general lien and can retain pledged ornaments until all debts are cleared. The court permitted a six-month instalment plan for the personal loan, deferred sale, and ultimately dismissed the writ petition and writ appeal with no costs.
R.C.R.No.49 of 2021 before the Kerala High Court arises from a challenge to eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The landlady sought eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop on the ground of bona fide need to start a tailoring shop. The Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff, Kannur) held the need to be bona fide, held that the first proviso to Section 11(3) did not apply, and rejected the second proviso, directing eviction. The Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-II, Thalassery) confirmed the eviction. The revision petition under Section 20 was admitted, and the court stayed execution for a period. After mediation attempts failed, the court heard the matter. The court reviewed the bona fide nature of the need, relying on the landlady's oral testimony and the existing jurisprudence, including Adil Jamshed Frenchman v. Sardur Dastur Schools Trust, Shiv Samp Gupta, Deena Nath, Ammu v. Nafeesa, and M.L. Prabhakar, clarifying that bona fide need must be sincere and that the second proviso imposes a burden on the tenant. The court found the lower courts' conclusions not perverse and, while upholding the eviction order, granted seven months to surrender possession due to the Covid-19 situation, on conditions including payment of arrears and continued rent. The mediation attempts were noted as unsuccessful, and the matter was disposed with a cautious time-frame for compliance.
Dasan @ K.A. Das filed a motor accident claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the owner of a car insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd., who allegedly caused the accident on 24 May 2008 in Nilambur, injuring the appellant whose motorcycle KL-18-K-1022 was struck by car KL-07-AL-5770 driven rashly by the first respondent. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, allowed the petition in part, awarding Rs.1,74,084 with interest and costs, and held the insurer liable to indemnify the owner. The appellant appealed, challenging the quantum of compensation. The insurer contested liability and argued contributory negligence by the claimant. The High Court examined Exts.A1–A10 and Ext.X1 (disability certificate) and noted negligence per Ext.A5. It re-delineated the applicant’s notional income, fixing it at Rs.6,500 per month (instead of the Tribunal’s Rs.3,250), guided by Ramachandrappa v. Manager. The Court assessed 25% functional disability (permanent ankylosis of the right ankle) and applied the multiplier from Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation (14), along with Rajkumar v. Ajayakumar guidance on disability assessment. It awarded Rs.2,73,000 for loss due to disability, enhanced several heads (loss of earnings, bystander expenses, extra nourishment, pain and suffering), and total compensation of Rs.4,74,484, with 7% interest from the petition date and Rs.15,000 costs. The insurer is to deposit the enhanced amount within two months; the Tribunal will disburse accordingly.
R.C.Rev Nos. 139 & 163 of 2019 This is a joint revision in respect of eviction orders under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, challenging the Rent Control Court’s order of eviction and the appellate confirmation thereof. The tenants (revision petitioners) sought to reopen the legality of eviction under Section 11(3) (and 11(8)) on the ground that the landlord’s asserted bona fide need – to start a boutique for his son who is a qualified fashion designer – was not proven and that other suitable rooms were available within the building or elsewhere. The landlord’s case rested on the need of his dependent son for a commercial space on the ground floor, with evidence including the landlord and his son as witnesses and documentary Exts A1–A11 and C1–C2; the son’s professional background in fashion design was highlighted to establish bona fide need. The tenants alleged a lack of genuine need, that the landlord evicts tenants to lease to others, and that there were no compelling grounds for eviction. The Rent Control Court’s 31.10.2016 order and the Appellate Authority’s detailed confirmation were upheld by the High Court after considering related precedents on bona fide need, dependency, and revisional propriety. While upholding the findings, the court granted the tenants time to vacate by 30.06.2023 under conditions, reinforcing that revisional jurisdiction is limited to legality, regularity and propriety, not reappreciation of evidence.
MACA No. 652 of 2013 from the Kerala High Court arises as an appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, award in OP(MV) 707/2006. On 6 October 2005, an autorickshaw driver (petitioner's 1st). He was hit by a motorcycle, sustaining grievous injuries including fractures and a subdural hematoma, leading to a 50‑day hospital stay and a 20% permanent disability (as per Ext. C1). The petitioners claimed a total compensation of Rs 10,35,000 and the petitioners (wife and minor children) sought relief under Section 166 of the MV Act. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim by awarding Rs 1,68,315 to the 1st petitioner with 7.5% interest and Rs 1,683 costs, directing the insurer (3rd respondent) to pay. The High Court re‑assessed quantum, relying on Supreme Court doctrines. It fixed the petitioner's notional income at Rs 5,000 per month (citing Ramachandrappa, Syed Sadiq and Pushkar Mehara) and held eligibility for loss of earning, enhanced pain and suffering (Rs 40,000), increased disability compensation (Rs 1,68,000), and adjusted total heads of claim. The Court concluded by allowing the appeal in part, enhancing compensation by Rs 95,400 with 7.5% interest from the petition date to realisation (excluding 290 days’ delay) and directed deposit of the enhanced amount within two months, with disbursement to follow legal requirements.
This is a writ appeal filed by Y. Sleebachan challenging the Kerala High Court’s order in WP(C)12774/2020 dated 23 July 2020. The appellant, a registered MSME contractor and partner, had his and his partnership firm’s cash credits classified as NPAs due to alleged communication errors with the Federal Bank. A settlement with the bank requiring payment of Rs.100 lakhs and an undertaking to close the partnership account by March 2020 facilitated withdrawal of an earlier writ petition. The appellant later sought renewal of his licenses under Government Orders mandating solvency certificates, arguing that a solvency certificate is essential for license renewal and that the bank’s refusal to issue Ext.P6 solvency certificate—on grounds of ongoing NPA status—would undermine his livelihood and hundreds of employees. Government orders extended renewal deadlines during COVID-19, and RBI Master Circulars require proper asset classification. The bank initially agreed to issue the solvency certificate but ultimately refused, prompting WP(C)12774/2020. The writ court dismissed the petition, holding that the bank, a private entity, cannot be treated as a State under Article 12 and thus writ jurisdiction does not lie. The Division Bench concludes that the bank is not performing sovereign/public functions and dismisses the writ appeal, upholding the bank’s decision. The judgment surveys authorities on public duty, writs against private banks, and the State–bank distinction.
CRL.A Nos. 1171 of 2016 & 919 of 2019 This is a consolidated criminal appeal from two convicts in a murder case arising from the 23 May 2013 incident at the residence of a deceased man in Karunagappally region. The two appellants, Jayaraj @ Manikkuttan (A2) and Sreekumar @ Chilluu Sreekumar (A1), allegedly visited the deceased after a telephone call and, following a drinking session with PW1 (wife of the deceased) and PW2 (associates), a fight ensued in which knives were drawn and the deceased died from a fatal chest injury. The trial court convicted A1 for murder under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 and A2 under related sections, sentencing them to life imprisonment and three years’ rigorous imprisonment with fines respectively. The High Court, in a Division Bench, re-evaluated the evidence and found no concrete premeditation. It held that the events unfolded as a sudden quarrel during a drinking party, with both A1 and the deceased wielding blades, and that the circumstances fit within Exception 4 to Sec. 300 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). Consequently, A1’s conviction was altered to culpable homicide under Exception 4 and the sentence reduced to up to 10 years, while A2 was acquitted. The court commended the investigation and prosecution, noting no direct ocular witness to the exact stabbing but corroborating the overall sequence with medical and forensic evidence. The appeals are disposed accordingly, with the State’s case upheld only to the limited extent that the act fell short of murder under the law.
Bail Appl. Nos. 1891/2021 and 2551/2021 Common Bail Applications arose in Bail Appl. Nos. 1891/2021 and 2551/2021 filed in Crime No. 859/2020 of Munambam Police Station, Ernakulam, by Jithoos and Naamdev, both aged about 19, seeking regular bail for the third time. The court previously rejected their bail, citing the gravity of the alleged offences—offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 212 and 201 read with 34 IPC—and the likelihood of witnesses being intimidated if released. The prosecution asserts a conspiratorial murder: on 22 September 2020, the deceased, enticed by a Facebook message supposedly from his girlfriend, went to Pallathamkulangara Beach where the first accused, envious of the deceased’s relationship with the girl, hatched a plan with others to kill him. The accused allegedly laid in wait with knives and wooden rafters; the post-mortem showed 39 ante-mortem injuries. Evidence includes CCTV footage and statements under Section 164 CrPC from the girl, plus alleged extra-judicial confessions. The applicants claim innocence, dwell on their youth and a perceived lack of criminal antecedents (the second accused has a disability). They dispute the completeness of the final report and argue for bail on humanitarian grounds. The learned judge reiterates that, despite their age, the gravity and the risk to witnesses justify denial, citing Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav to emphasise that a subsequent bail application is only permissible in a changed fact or law scenario. Accordingly, the applications are dismissed and the trial is to be expedited.
Guruva, aged 52, was convicted by the First Additional District and Sessions Court Kasaragod under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for possessing 250 packets of arrack, each 100 ml, seized during a patrol on 21 January 2008. The prosecution case rests on the seizure of the illicit liquor, the sample drawn (290 ml) for chemical analysis, and the subsequent reports and statements of witnesses PW1 (Preventive Officer) and PW2. On appeal, the counsel for the appellant assailed the prosecution on several fronts: inconsistencies between PW1/PW2 and the investigating officer PW6, unexplained delay in investigation alleged to prejudice the accused, and minor discrepancies in the quantity of the sample (290 ml vs 296 ml) and in the recording of statements or production of the property list. The public prosecutor countered that the delay did not prejudice the appellant and that minor inconsistencies could not vitiate the entire case when the documentary and circumstantial evidence (including the sealed sample and property list) supported the prosecution. The Kerala High Court examined delay jurisprudence and cited Supreme Court precedents including Ranbir, Ganesh Bhavan Patel, Banti, Surajit Sarkar, Santosh T.A, and Varghese to hold that delay alone does not entail fatal prejudice absent prejudice to the accused. It found no material prejudice and upheld the Sessions Court’s findings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with the conviction and sentence maintained.
This High Court of Kerala (Ernakulam) MACA No. 3976 of 2019 arises from an award dated 03.05.2019 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur, in OP(MV) No.835/2018, awarding compensation to the legal heirs of Padmakumar (deceased) against the Bolero driver, the registered owner, and the insurer. The appellant insurer challenges the award as ex facie unjust, contending that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal for determining dependency loss was not properly grounded, that the Tribunal wrongly awarded amounts for pain and suffering and loss of love and affection to legal heirs, and that the Tribunal misapplied future prospects. The accident occurred on 19.03.2018; the petition sought roughly ₹30.45 lakh. The Tribunal held the accident the result of rash driving by the first respondent and awarded ₹28,67,200, with 7% interest and costs. The key dispute concerns the deceased’s earning capacity. While the insurer argued for a conservative figure, the court, citing Ramachandrappa, held the deceased’s education and technical qualifications justify a higher income and fixed ₹13,000 per month, with a 40% uplift for future prospects and a multiplier of 18, resulting in ₹19,65,600 for dependency loss. The court also faulted the inclusion of certain heads for the legal heirs and directed a fresh calculation. After adjustments (including loss of consortium to parents and exclusion of non-payable heads), the court arrived at ₹20,91,147, with 7.5% interest and costs. MACA stands allowed in part.
WP(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases These writ petitions challenge Government Orders and the prospectus governing admission to Plus One (Higher Secondary) courses for the academic year 2022-2023 in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools across Kerala. The core dispute centers on Government Order GO(MS) No.121/2022/G.Edn dated 7 July 2022, which reduces the Management Quota in Private Aided H.S.S. to 20% and introduces a 10% community quota to be reserved for students of the community to which the managing institution belongs, contingent on the management declaring its community. The petitioners (school managers) contend that this 10% community quota and the related rider on non-declaration violate Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and undermine merit and secular character of education, while the respondents defend the policy as a corrective measure to curb malpractices and ensure merit. The Kerala High Court, per a Single Judge, holds that while GO(MS) No.121/2022 fixing the overall management quota at 20% is not to be interfered with, the 10% community quota and the requirement to declare the community are unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 15. The court directs that the 10% seats be treated as open merit seats to be allotted through the Centralized Allotment Process, and that admissions already made on declared-community basis shall not be disturbed. The petitions are disposed of accordingly.
OT.Rev.No.101/2015; OT.Rev.No.96/2015; OT.Rev.No.112/2015 This consolidated High Court of Kerala order deals with three tax revision petitions (OT.Rev.No.101/2015, OT.Rev.No.96/2015, OT.Rev.No.112/2015) filed by M/s Edappal Hospital (P) Ltd. challenging VAT Tribunal orders on the taxability of purchases (laboratory chemicals, surgical items) and X-ray charges by a hospital, and the corresponding sales to patients. The revisions arise from three separate assessment years, each involving T.A.(VAT) Nos.1166/1163/1165/2013. The core issue is whether such hospital transactions fall within the taxable ambit under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act for medical emergencies and therapeutic prescriptions. The petitioners rely on a Full Bench decision in Sanjose Parish Hospital (M/s.) v. Commercial Tax Officer and Others (2019 (1) KHC 377 (FB)) to argue non-taxability. The State counters that there is a pending Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, but no stay has been granted, and therefore the revisions should not be kept pending. The Division Bench ultimately sets aside the Tribunal orders, answers the questions in favour of the assessee, and reserves the outcome to any reversal by the Supreme Court of the FB ruling, with costs awarded to the parties. The decision highlights coordination between VAT jurisprudence and medical service exemptions as clarified by the FB judgment.
WP(C).No. 22546 of 2016 (P) The petitioners in WP(C).No.22546 of 2016 (P) are three employees appointed on contract by the second respondent (CAPE) for short tenures in Kasaragod district: Dhanesh T.P. (peon), Damodharan (security guard) and Dhanesh Mon. K.A. (driver-cum-attender). They challenge terminations that cut short their renewed contracts on 23 June 2016, despite extensions granted in 2016 (Exts. P3, P8, P12). They relied on Ext. P16 (dated 25 February 2016) indicating a policy for regularisation of employees who had completed three years; they argue that the extensions effectively created a contractual expectation of continued service and possible regularisation. The respondents contend that each contract, as last renewed, fixed a one-year extension or until alternative arrangements were made, whichever is earlier; termination was therefore permissible as there was no post vacancy or regularisation for these posts; Ext. P16 is not applicable to them since they failed eligibility or because the posts were not the ones contemplated for regularisation. After hearing, the judge found that the basis of service for these petitioners rests on the contract; there is no right to continuity beyond the contractual term; estoppel prevents contravention of contract terms; Ext. P16 cannot override contractual terms. The court also cites State of Maharashtra v. Anita to underscore contractual estoppel. The writ petition is dismissed.
Prasanna Kumar, the petitioner in OP(C) No.199 of 2024 before the Kerala High Court, challenges Ext. P5, dated 12.01.2024, in EA No.637/2023 in EP No.486/2023 arising from O.S. No.403/1982 of the Principal Munsiff Court, Cherthala. The petition traces the chain of decrees in the partition suit, including the Final Decree dated 20.01.2004 (Exhibit P1) and the Supplementary Final Decree dated 24.09.2021 (Exhibit P2), as well as subsequent execution proceedings (EP 486/2023) and the related EA (EA 637/2023). The petitioner contends entitlement to challenge the execution order under Order 21, Rule 97, on the ground that, as the legal heir of the 15th defendant in the partition suit, he has standing to seek delivery and impugn Ext. P5. The learned Judge, however, notes that the petitioner is a legal heir of a party to the suit, but Rule 97’s “any person” does not extend to a judgment debtor, citing Bhwanlal v. Satyanarain, 1995 (1) SCC 6. Consequently, Ext. P4 was dismissed by Ext. P5, and the petition is dismissed. The Court clarifies that the petitioner may pursue legal remedies against the supplemental final decree dated 08.12.2022 (I.A.13/2020) and the delivery sought thereunder.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition by T. A. Chandran challenging concurrent convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque for Rs. 4 lakhs that bounced. The trial court convicted Chandran on 27.9.2008; the Sessions Court, Thalassery, by its impugned judgment dated 26.11.2014, upheld the conviction and modified the substantive sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court while confirming the compensation and its default sentence. The revision court, hearing on 2.8.2017, found that vital and crucial aspects of the matter had been shut out from consideration by both courts below, rendering the impugned sentences illegal and improper. The core issue is whether the complainant proved the source of funds with which the Rs. 4 lakhs was advanced, a prerequisite for invoking the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act. The court noted that the statutory demand notice, complaint, proof affidavit, and cross-examination were silent on essential transactional particulars, such as the date and nature of the loan and the exact manner of the transfer of funds. The complainant’s credibility was undermined by his own admissions that he is not an Income Tax payer, lacks maintained accounts, and could not demonstrate a single credible source of funds for such a large loan. The court relied on established principles requiring disclosure of transaction particulars and proper proof of funds, citing K.K. Divakaran, John K. Abraham, K. Subramani, and K. Prakashan. Accordingly, the impugned judgments were set aside and the accused acquitted under Sec. 138 NI Act, and set at liberty.
BAIL APPL. NO. 444 OF 2024 This Bail Application before Justice C.S. Dias concerns the sole accused in Crime No. 3/2024 of the Kottarakkara Excise Range Office, Kollam, charged under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act for illegal sale of three litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and possession of Rs 500 in sale proceeds. Arrested on 11 January 2024, the petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC, arguing innocence, false implication, completed investigation, and absence of criminal antecedents; recovery has already been effected, and continued detention is argued to be unnecessary. The Public Prosecutor concedes the detention period but opposes bail on the gravity of the offence and potential public policy implications; she notes the investigation is practically complete. After careful consideration, the judge finds that the detention since 11 January 2024, the completed investigation, the absence of antecedents, and the recovery made justify bail. Accordingly, the court allows the bail application, directing the petitioner to furnish a bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties, and to comply with conditions including weekly appearances before the Investigating Officer for two months or until the final report is filed, refraining from any inducement or tampering, and surrendering any passport. The order permits investigation and recoveries to continue under the IO’s supervision, in line with Supreme Court guidance. An annexure records the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.I, Kottarakkara dated 12.02.2024.
CRL.M.C. No. 7616 of 2023 This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC pending before the Kerala High Court. The petitioners, Ali Askar C.K. and Muhammed Arifudheen C., stand accused in Crime No.1249/2023 of Chadayamangalam Police Station for offences under Sections 336 and 304-A IPC. The prosecution alleges that on 27.08.2023 the victim visited the petitioners’ furniture shop, where the 2nd petitioner functioned as manager, and the victim sustained injuries after falling from the first floor. The defence seeks to quash the proceedings citing a settlement between the parties; affidavits from the victims support the settlement and show no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor, while noting the parties’ settlement, expressed reluctance to quash solely on that basis. The court examined the records and placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, which explains the scope of Section 482 to quash non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is private in nature and fully resolved, with caveats for heinous or specially statutorily governed offences. The Kerala High Court concluded the dispute is private, the settlement is acceptable, and proceeded to quash further proceedings against the petitioners. The order underscores the settled, private nature of the dispute and examines the accused’s conduct in the context of settlement.
MACA No.6/2018 & CO No.10/2019 This Kerala High Court judgment revisits the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in OP(MV) No.640/2012 arising from a 2012 road accident at Mavelikara. Gopalan, a 43-year-old fish vendor, died in the mishap when a pick-up van collided with his motorcycle; the insurer (appellant) contested the award, alleging contributory negligence by the deceased and arguing the driver lacked a valid license, while the respondents/cross-objectors sought enhancement of compensation under multiple heads. The Tribunal awarded Rs.11,06,856 with interest at 7.5%, which the insurer challenged and the cross-objectors urged to increase. The court re-evaluated the deceased’s income, adopting Rs.8,500 per month (up from Rs.5,500) and applying 25% future prospects (replacing 30%), guided by Pranay Sethi and Soman v. Jinesh James, with a 14-multipler and one-third personal deduction. It held that loss of consortium should be Rs.1,20,000 (instead of Rs.1,00,000) and that loss of love and affection should be absorbed into the consortium head, deleting a separate Rs.1,00,000. Funeral and loss of estate were re-fixed at Rs.15,000 each, while pain and suffering in death cases was retained at Rs.25,000. The overall award was adjusted to Rs.13,71,000 with interest on the enhanced amount, and the insurer was directed to deposit the balance within a month for disbursement. The judgment also discussed the pay-and-recover principle for cases where the driver lacked a valid license.
Lisie Medical Institutions, a trust operating Lisie Hospital in Ernakulam, challenged a notice under the Kerala Building Tax Act denying exemption for a building constructed in 2013 that provided medical treatment at concessional rates. The Government referred the question under Section 3(2) to decide whether the building qualified as a “building used principally for charitable or educational purposes” and, under Section 3(3), its final decision would be unreviewable in court. Ext.P9 (17 March 2016) held that the building would not qualify for exemption since it did not provide free medical relief, with charitable relief being nominal. The appellant challenged this in Writ Petition (C) No. 20448/2016; prior rulings by this Court and the Supreme Court’s SH Medical Centre Hospital decision were involved. The Supreme Court’s remand in Civil Appeal No. 6799 of 2017 and subsequent references to Lisie Medical Institutions and SH Medical Centre Hospital traced a complex jurisprudential path, involving Unity Hospital (Full Bench 2010) and later clarifications. The three-judge bench in 2023 overruled SH Medical Centre Hospital to the extent of recognizing that Explanation 1 to Section 3(1) is inclusive of charitable facets beyond free medical relief, while reaffirming that exemption is a strict entry-bound provision. Ultimately, the Kerala High Court held the building not entitled to exemption, and the writ appeal was dismissed as not meeting the required “principally for charitable purposes” test.
BAIL APPL. NO. 410 OF 2024 This is a Kerala High Court single-judge order on an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC, filed by Roger TS, accused in Crime No.798/2023 of Mavelikkara Police Station, Alappuzha, along with nine co-accused, in a case alleging offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges that, on various occasions in 2021, the accused conspired to obtain a false admission for the de facto complainant into the University of Bedfordshire for a MSc International Business with Data Analytics, collecting about Rs 10 lakh, but they failed to secure admission or return the money. The de facto complainant lodged a complaint, leading to registration of the crime. The petitioner contends innocence, and that the consultancy enterprise collected fees but Covid-19 prevented admission; they claim to have forwarded the fees to the University and argue custodial interrogation is unnecessary. The Public Prosecutor counters that the petitioner has a long criminal record (14 other crimes) and is often in custody in other cases; allowing pre-arrest bail could obstruct the investigation and influence witnesses, and recovery is pending. After considering rival submissions and relying on the Supreme Court authorities Siddharam Mhetre, Sibbia, and Jai Prakash Singh, the judge holds that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in this case given the gravity of the offence, ongoing investigation, and need for custodial interrogation. The application is dismissed, but the court offers a 10-day surrender window with subsequent re-evaluation of bail by the trial court.
