The Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, hears Crl.M.C. No.1994 of 2025, a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed by three accused persons—Najeeeb K.P., Mohammed K, and Arathi V—seeking quashment of Crime No.11/2024 of Manjeri Police Station, now pending as CC No.173/2024 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri. The offences alleged are under Sections 498A and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The Court directed recording of the defacto complainant’s statement; the defacto complainant’s affidavit and evidence establish that the parties have settled their disputes and that she has no continuing grievance nor intention to prosecute further. The petitioners contended that settlement, bona fides, and absence of likelihood of conviction justify quashing under the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now 528 BNSS, 2023). The Court examined precedents—B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303—to determine the permissible scope of quashing non‑compoundable offences upon settlement, noting that ends of justice may override strict adherence to law when fraud or abuse is absent. The Court concluded the settlement is genuine and bonafide, continuing proceedings would be futile and an abuse of process, and that the quashment would secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, Annexure-A Final Report and all further proceedings in CC 173/2024 are quashed.
Princy K. filed WP(C) No. 3876 of 2025 challenging the allotment of fancy vehicle registration marks following an online auction for KL 09 AY 9999 and KL 09 AZ 0001. The petitioner, who purchased a Toyota Vellfire Hybrid VIP, claims to have participated in the 27 January 2025 auction, paid reserve prices, and faced technical glitches—network failures and server downtime—that allegedly prevented her from raising bids. She submits that KL 09 AY 9999 was allotted to the 4th respondent Omega Motors Pvt. Ltd. while the portal showed its status as “assignment pending” for that mark; she contends the allotment violates Rule 95(7) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which requires bid amounts to be remitted immediately after the auction. She seeks a reauction and greater bidding transparency. The respondents counter that the auction ran from 25 January 2025, 4:00 pm to 27 January 2025, 10:30 am, with the NIC portal administered and last-minute bids recorded after 10:30 am; Ext.R4(d) shows the 4th respondent remitted the balance by 28 January 2025 within five days. The court found no reliable evidence of glitches and held that remittance within five days aligns with Rosali v Taico Bank and Rao Mahmood Amed Khan’s interpretation of “immediately.” Consequently, the petition was dismissed; the auction stood in favor of the 4th respondent.
Shamsuddin Panakadan filed WP(C) No. 8918 of 2025 before the Kerala High Court alleging illegality in the freezing of his bank account No. 31800645825 by the 3rd respondent bank, on police requisitions. He contends the freeze is arbitrary and ungrounded, and seeks unfettered access to his funds. The court, hearing from the petitioner, Government Pleader and the bank, notes that the bank asserts the disputed amount is Rs. 10,00,000. In a cross-referential framework, the court relies on prior decisions to frame the permissible scope of bank freezes. In particular, Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) is cited for limiting freezes to the exact amounts mentioned in police orders and requiring banks to act consistent with police directions; Nazeer K.T v. Subsequently, Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768) is cited for similar principles and for harmonizing them with Section 102 Cr.P.C. (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Additional authorities include Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen. The court emphasizes that delay in reporting seizures can be irregular, but total failure to report undermines seizure validity. Accordingly, directions are issued to confine the freeze to the prescribed amount, require police to inform whether continued freezing is needed and for what period, and, if no information is received within two months of the judgment copy, lift the debit freeze. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Akbar Sharif v Union of India, National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, Inspector of Police Kurar Police Station, and The Manager, Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd., WP(C) No.9941 of 2025, was heard by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. The petitioner challenged the freezing of his bank account number 007900100065173 by the 4th respondent bank on the basis of a police requisition. He contends the debit freeze and the lien on Rs 2,00,000 are illegal and arbitrary, effectively depriving him of access to his funds. The bank had claimed a lien and cited the police requisition as the basis for the freeze. The court relied on recent Kerala High Court pronouncements in Dr. Sajeer v RBI and Nazeer K.T v Federal Bank Ltd to emphasize that bank freezes must be narrowly tailored to the amount specified in the police requisition and must be reviewed periodically. The judgment also engages with Section 102 CrPC (now Section 106 BNSS 2023) and cites State of Maharashtra v Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad, and Shento Varghese to articulate that prompt reporting of seizures to the jurisdiction Magistrate is essential and that if reporting lags, banks may lift the freeze. Accordingly, the court directed the bank to limit the freeze to the authorized amount, require police-tentative directions within a specified period, and lift the debit freeze if no timely intimation is received, while reserving liberty to approach the court again if needed. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
This writ petition filed in the Kerala High Court by Mukkam Megala Multi Purpose Co-Operative Society Ltd seeks to lift the freezing of its bank account No. 1072102000006569 by the first respondent, IDBI Bank. The petitioner contends that the freezing, effected under police requisitions, is illegal and arbitrary and that the bank should permit normal transaction beyond any provisional limits. The bank’s stand is that the debit freeze was lifted but a lien remains as per police requisitions; the Police have registered Crime No. 80/2023. The Government Pleader and counsel for the bank inform that the freeze is connected to ongoing investigations. In considering earlier, related authorities, the Court relies on Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) and subsequent Kerala and Karnataka cases, including Nazeer K.T v. Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768), to frame a coherent approach. The judgment emphasizes that freezing should be confined to the amount stated in police orders, and banks must await police clarification on continued freezing within prescribed timelines. It also directs police to report whether seizure has been reported to the Magistrate and mandates lifting or continuation of the freeze, with a two-month window if no information is received. The order culminates in directing compliance with these principles and disposing of the petition accordingly.
The petitioner, Saleela A., a senior U.P. School teacher at Thazhuthala Muslim U.P. School, challenged Exts.P5/P5(a) which appointed the 2nd respondent, Gracy Chacko, as Headmistress, arguing she is senior to the incumbent and should have been selected under Kerala Education Rules, 1959. She relied on Ext.P1 (seniority list) and Exts.P2–P3 representations, and contended that the 1st respondent Manager acted unilaterally, circumventing the management committee and minority-institution safeguards. She invoked the amendment to Rule 18(1) of the Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (Ext.P14) to exempt teachers from certain tests, claiming exemption from test qualifications. Opposing this, the respondents argued the Manager implements majority decisions of the school’s management committee, citing bye-law Clause 8 (Ext.R1G) and COVID-era proceedings (Ext.R1(a)–R1(f)) showing consensus among committee members. They asserted the 2nd respondent was duly qualified, and the appointment was approved by educational authorities (Ext.P13), with the amendment’s prospective operation being settled by prior judicial rulings (cited in WP(C) 34092/2019). The court ultimately held that minority institutions may appoint a qualified Headmistress through the management’s choice, and declined to interfere, dismissing the petition. It emphasized Article 30(1)’s protection of management’s absolute authority in establishing and administering minority educational institutions.
This High Court of Kerala judgment in Crl.M.C.9476 of 2023, filed by petitioner Shanu Shaju, concerns a pre-trial challenge to a final report in Crime No.1424/2019 of Hill Palace Police Station, Ernakulam, which is pending as SC No.292/2023 before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner seeks to quash under Section 482 CrPC on grounds that the allegations of offences under Sections 420 and 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act arise from a consensual relationship with a defacto complainant belonging to a Scheduled Caste, based on a promise of marriage that was not fulfilled. The prosecution contends that the offences are made out, particularly given alleged misrepresentation and the applicability of SC/ST provisions; thus, trial is warranted. The court conducts a thorough survey of jurisprudence on consent, misconception of fact, and the distinction between rape and consensual sex, citing Uday v. State of Karnataka, Deelip Singh, Yedla Srinivasa Rao, Jayanti Rani Panda, Deepak Gulati, Prashant Bharti, Rajiv Thapar, and Bhajan Lal among others. It analyzes the dual aspects of consent under Section 90 IPC and the promissory misrepresentation to marry, applying them to the present facts. Ultimately, the court declines to quash the proceedings, emphasizing that the material requires trial and that the pre-trial stage cannot dispose of the case; the petition is dismissed and the criminal process continues.
The writ petition before the Kerala High Court seeks a direction to lift the debit freeze on the petitioner’s bank account No. 40506101012154 maintained with Kerala Gramin Bank. The petitioner asserts that the freezing was imposed arbitrarily pursuant to a police requisition and affects his ability to operate his account; he claims he is not a charged accused and that the bank has not shown cause to freeze the entire balance. The court notes the bank’s contention that the dispute involves Rs. 9,40,000 and that an FIR has been registered; it is argued that the petitioner had already withdrawn the entire amount prior to the FIR. In addressing similar matters, the court relies on Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) and Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768), which direct that freezing orders should be confined to the amount specified in police requisitions and that banks must obtain timely information from police about continuation of freezes. The judgment also considers Section 102 CrPC (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and related authorities (State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy; Teesta Atul Setalvad; Shento Varghese). The court ultimately orders that freezing be limited to the specified amount, requires police notification on continuation, and provides a path for the petitioner to approach the court again if information is not supplied timely; the writ petition is disposed with directions.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3622 OF 2025 This is a Kerala High Court bail application (BaIl Appl. No. 3622 of 2025) filed by accused nos. 1, 3 and 4 in Crime No. 214/2025 of Alappuzha South Police Station under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for offences including sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2) and 3(5). The learned Judge, P. V. Kunhikrishnan, J., delivered on 1 April 2025, considers whether bail can be granted despite serious allegations, noting that there are two versions of the incident: the prosecution alleges a coordinated assault on the defacto complainant by the petitioners at night, including helmet blows and a granite stone attack; the petitioners dispute the version and evidence. The court reiterates the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, invoking jurisprudence from Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Joginder Kumar, among others, to emphasize proportionality between investigation needs and personal liberty. While the offences are serious, the court recognizes that arrest should not be routine and that compelling grounds are needed for denial of bail. After considering the facts and statutory context, the court allows bail with conditions, citing the need to protect fair trial and avoid undue prejudice to the accused while ensuring cooperation with the investigation.
The petitioner, V. Vasantha, a 71-year-old senior citizen, seeks a direction to the 4th respondent to permit remittance of land tax in her name for two parcels of property in Athiyannoor village without endorsing on the tax receipt that civil cases are pending. She purchased 3 cents in old Survey No. 381/6 and Re Survey No. 852/16 (Ext. P1), and another extent of 2.65 Ares (Ext. P3); mutation was effected and tax receipts were issued (Exts. P2, P4). A civil suit, O.S. No. 25/2020 before the Principal Munsiff, Neyyattinkara, sought to restrain trespass and demolition of two sheds; interim orders directed status quo (Exts. P6–P9). Tax was accepted up to 24.12.2019, after which Ext. P11 directed the 4th respondent to accept tax but with an endorsement on receipts stating pendency of civil cases. The petitioner challenges Ext. P11 as contrary to the practice and relies on Gopalan K.A. v. State of Kerala (W.P.(C) No. 32180/2024), where a similar scenario directed issue of land tax receipts and revenue certificates without adverse endorsements. The Government Pleader confirms no civil court order prohibiting tax collection. The Court finds no basis for Ext. P11’s rider and holds that tax receipts may be issued without such endorsement. Ext. P11 is set aside to the extent it requires endorsement; respondents are to collect tax and issue receipts without the rider. The petition is allowed, consistent with the cited precedent and the petitioner’s status as a senior citizen.
This is a Kerala High Court bail application (Bail Appl. No. 4318 of 2025) by two accused, Nasar Babu and Hashim P, pending in Crime No. 122/2025 of Vazhakkad Police Station, Malappuram. They are accused under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for allegedly deceiving a defacto complainant via WhatsApp advertisement promising laptops and home appliances at half price, resulting in the transfer of Rs. 90,000 to the petitioners. The prosecution alleges non-delivery of goods. The petitioners moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking bail; the State and SHOs opposed. The court referred to Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another, holding that arrest under Section 41 CrPC for offences punishable up to seven years requires necessity and justification, not mere belief. The judge summarized the principle: arrest cannot be automatic for offences with up to seven years’ imprisonment; police must be satisfied that arrest is necessary to prevent further offences, ensure proper investigation, prevent evidence tampering, or protect witnesses, with reasons recorded in writing. The court directed surrender before the Investigating Officer within three weeks, with interrogation on consecutive days (10 AM–4 PM) and no arrest during that period; if arrest becomes inevitable post-interrogation, Arnesh Kumar guidelines apply. The petitions are disposed of with directions, and bail consideration can occur at production under the same principles.
The writ petition challenges the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account No. 1735020000000023 by the 4th respondent bank, on an instruction from the 2nd respondent police. Muhammed Izudheen K, the petitioner, contends that the freeze is illegal and arbitrary, preventing ordinary banking transactions, and seeks its lifting. The court notes that police seizure and freezing of accounts are regulated by Section 102 CrPC, now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and by judicial directions in prior cases, such as Dr. Sajeer v RBI and Nazeer K.T v Federal Bank Ltd. It emphasizes that, where possible, freezes should be limited to the amount stated in the requisition; banks should confirm with police the duration and extent of the freeze and notify courts as required. In this case, the court directs the 4th respondent to confine the freeze to the amount mentioned, instructs the police to inform banks whether continued freezing is required, and directs banks to act accordingly. If no information is received, petitioners may approach this Court again. The judgment also requires service of the order on the relevant police and bank officers. The decision aims to balance legitimate police interests with the rights of account holders to access funds within the legal limit.
This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal from the Kerala High Court concerns five appellants who seek enhanced compensation following the death of Chandran in a motor-vehicle accident on 22 January 2015. The deceased was a concrete slab cutter, and the accident occurred when a lorry (KL-09/AC-7325) allegedly struck him; the Tribunal held negligence by the driver and awarded Rs.12,87,200 in total compensation, directing the insurer to pay. The appellants challenge the quantum, arguing the deceased’s notional income was undervalued (they contend about Rs.12,000 per month vs. the Tribunal’s Rs.7,000) and urging recourse to the notional income principle for casual labour as laid down in Ramachandrappa. They rely on the Supreme Court’s decisions on future prospects (Pranay Sethi, National Insurance Co. Ltd v Pranay Sethi) and the Sarla Verma framework for calculating dependency, multipliers, and deductions, to recompute the loss of dependency. They also seek higher awards for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium, arguing that love and affection should be maintained or differently treated in light of Somwati. The respondents defend the Tribunal’s calculations, contending the income figure and heads of damage were reasonable. In the end, the High Court partly allows the appeal, recalculating compensation and directing deposit and disbursement within two months with interest and costs.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3662 OF 2025 This Kerala High Court bail petition concerns two accused, Jithesh R S and Aravind S, in Crime No. 371/2025 of Sooranad Police Station, Kollam. The petitioners challenge their detention under sections 115(2), 118(1), 117(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in a case arising from an incident on 02.03.2025, with the FIR registered on 10.03.2025. The only non-bailable offense alleged is 118(1) BNS; the maximum penalty cited is three years. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but reported no criminal antecedents per investigation notes. The petitioners argue for bail on grounds that custodial interrogation is unnecessary; the incident is alleged to be spur‑of‑the-moment and linked to enmity over parking during a temple ground festival. The court cites established bail principles from Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another, noting that police arrest must be justified and not routine; it reiterates that bail is the rule and imprisonment the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Manish Sisodia v. CBI. It also references Sushila Aggarwal and Anzar Azeez for bail framework and continuing police investigation while on bail. The court ultimately allows the bail application subject to conditions: appearance before the IO within two weeks, bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, restriction on travel, cooperation with investigation, and potential cancellation of bail for violation. The decision emphasizes that jurisdictional courts may cancel bail if conditions are breached.
This writ petition challenges the refusal of the Sub Registrar, Mathamangalam, to register Ext.P3, a settlement deed executed by Kavanal Periyattu Sreedharan Nambiar in favour of his son for 16.34 ares of land out of the applicant’s total 20 ares (Resurvey No.5/106, Eranam village, Kannur district). The resurvey shows the property extent as 36.57 ares, while the thandaper account and tax records reflect variances in measured area. The petitioner had earlier presented Ext.P3 for registration on 24.01.2023; the Sub Registrar refused registration, insisting on production of prior title documents. The petitioner contends that registration under the Registration Act cannot be made to hinge on producing prior title deeds, and argues that possessory rights can be transferred; the mere existence of title or possession is not determinative of title for registration. The writ petition cites Sumathi and Another v. State of Kerala and Others and Balachandran v. Sub Registrar (and related 2018/2023 judgments) to argue that the Sub Registrar is not legally justified to demand prior title. The court discusses Section 17 of the Registration Act and various government circulars to emphasize that the Sub Registrar’s role is to register the instrument if it is otherwise in order, without delving into the veracity of title. Ultimately, the court holds that there are no legal impediments to the petitioners’ pleas, quashes Ext.P5, and directs registration of Ext.P3 when presented, provided it is otherwise in order, while permitting mutation and land-tax action upon registration.
The petitioner, Razy Muradh, age 25, challenges the freezing of his Axis Bank account bearing no. 918010078288730, allegedly done pursuant to a requisition from the police. He contends the freezing is illegal and arbitrary, and seeks lifting of the debit freeze to enable him to transact. The bank previously submitted that the disputed amount is Rs. 4,76,857/-. The Court relies on earlier Kerala decisions, notably Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India, to direct banks to confine freeze measures to the amount mentioned in the police requisition and to require police to indicate whether continued freeze is necessary and for how long. It also incorporates Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd, and interprets Section 102 CrPC (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) along with Supreme Court authorities in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen. The culmination is a set of directions: confine the freeze to the specified amount, police to inform on continuation, banks to adhere or withdraw accordingly, and, if no information is received within the stipulated period, lift the debit freeze. The petition is disposed accordingly by a Single Judge, Justice C.S. Dias, on 25 March 2025.
This Bail Application was filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita by Aswin K.V., accused in Crime No.118/2025 of Elamakkara Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC for allegedly duping a defacto complainant by promising a platinum premium gateway membership for seven years, which was not delivered. The petitioner contends the allegations are baseless or not constituting any offence, and expresses willingness to comply with conditions if bail is granted. The State opposed bail but acknowledged lack of criminal antecedents. The court cites well-established bail principles: bail is the rule and jail the exception, supported by Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, and reinforces with Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, Manish Sisodia v. CBI, Sushila Aggarwal v. State, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala, to emphasize personal liberty and judicial discretion in grant of bail. After considering the submissions and authorities, the court grants bail with stringent conditions: appearance before IO within two weeks; post-interrogation bail on bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties; non-flight; avoidance of further offences; cooperation; and conditions allowing cancellation of bail for violations. The decision is delivered by Single Judge P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J, as a bail order and not a conviction, with observations limited to bail considerations.
BA Nos.4058 & 4019 of 2025 This is a common order disposing Bail Applications Nos. 4058 of 2025 and 4019 of 2025 under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, arising from Crime No.256/2025 of Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod. The petitioners—Sreenath K (BA 4058) and Abhilash K, Pradeep K, Akshay Krishnan Nambiar, and Vijeesh P.B (BA 4019)—are accused in offences under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 connected to a temple festival incident during the Palakkunnu Bharani procession on 28.02.2025, allegedly resulting in injuries including a fractured defacto complainant. Prosecution contends that the incident occurred during temple festivities and adds Section 118(2) of BNS; the accused are said to have attacked the complainant due to an enmity regarding a dance program. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail but notes that the 3rd petitioner in BA 4019/2025 is not an accused. The court, after considering the absence of criminal antecedents and the temple-festival context, concludes that the gravity is not severe and that bail is permissible with stringent conditions. Relying on Supreme Court precedents—including bail as a rule and jail as the exception—the court grants bail on conditions: appearance before the IO on Mondays at 10:00 AM, Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, non-evacuation from India, no further offences, and cooperation with the investigation. The order cites Anzar Azeez and Sushila Aggarwal as touchstones for these conditions and reiterates that recoveries may be sought under bail. The two connected cases are disposed by a common order.
This High Court of Kerala criminal revision challenges concurrent convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The original accused, Rajan P. George (now deceased), along with his legal representatives added as petitioners 2–5, faced findings of guilt by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta, in S.T. No. 2015/2009 and by the Additional Sessions Court (Ad‑hoc) Pathanamthitta in Crl.A. No. 253/2010. The complainant alleged two cheques for Rs. 5,00,000 each issued to discharge a Rs. 10,00,000 liability arising from execution of three promissory notes; the cheques were dishonoured for insufficiency. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused; the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal. The revision contends that the complainant failed to prove (i) a legally enforceable debt or liability and (ii) that the cheques were drawn on an account in the name of the accused. The defense cites the proof affidavit and Exts P1–P2, arguing that the promissory notes and consideration were not established and that the cheques were issued against an account in the name of C.K. Cattle Feeds, not the accused personally. The court also relies on Shaji v. Ignatius (2009) to emphasize the need for promissory note proof. On these grounds, the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the lower court judgments, and acquitted the accused under Section 138 NI Act.
CRL.A Nos.1650 and 1653 of 2006 These criminal appeals arise from a 7 November 2003 robbery at Agasthya Ayurvedic Hospital, Panangad, Ernakulam, where about fifteen intruders armed with swords and iron rods stormed the hospital, threatened doctors and staff, and looted gold ornaments, a tape recorder, landline phone and other equipment. Ext.P1 FIR records the incident; PW1 (hospital proprietor) and PW2 (her partner) testified that five assailants entered the doctor’s room, brandished swords, and demanded valuables while others looted and ransacked. Several employees were deprived of ornaments and belongings, and certain articles were recovered later. The investigation trace led to the recovery of stolen items from the residence of a co-accused and from bank documents. The trial court charged the accused under IPC sections 395, 398, 400, 402 and 450, and included 120B as well; the petitioners A1–A6 and A10 were convicted, while some co-accused were acquitted. On appeal, the High Court found A5 not identified by witnesses, but upheld the identification of the other accused. Consequently, 1650/2006 was dismissed, and 1653/2006 was partly allowed: the convictions of A1, A2, A3, A4, A6 and A10 were sustained, A5 was acquitted, and the sentence/fines were confirmed. Interlocutory proceedings were closed.
