This is a bail application BA No.3998 of 2025 under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, filed by Adin Nasar and Vaheeda Nassar, accused in Crime No.1061/2024 of Vadakkekad Police Station, Thrissur, under Section 498A IPC. The petitioners, a husband and wife, contend matrimonial disputes are pending before the Family Court and deny the occurrence of the alleged incident, offering to comply with any conditions if bail is granted. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail. The Court notes that matrimonial disputes exist and that custodial interrogation is not deemed necessary in the circumstances. Relying on the well-established bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the Court cites Supreme Court authorities including Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, and Manish Sisodia v. CBI, to justify granting bail with stringer conditions. The order records conditions: the petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks for interrogation; if arrest is proposed, they shall be released on bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; they must appear as required; they shall not leave India without permission; they shall not commit similar offences; they must cooperate with the investigation. The Court clarifies that the observations are for bail purposes only and that investigation and recovery may proceed if necessary. The order cites Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), among others, as supportive authorities. Bail is granted by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan.
The Kerala High Court, in a Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482 CrPC, quashes the criminal proceedings against accused Nos. 1 to 3 (Shanoj, Pushpa, and Shabnamol) in CC No.114/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Kozhikode, who faced charges under Sections 406 and 498A IPC. The petition hinges on an amicable settlement between the petitioners and the de facto complainant (Athira). The court had previously directed the investigating officer to verify the settlement and check for any obstacles or criminal antecedents. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on settlement, but acknowledged no other complaints against the petitioners. The judgment surveys Supreme Court jurisprudence (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh; Parbatbhai Aahir; Laxmi Narayan; and others) via a chain of decisions culminating in State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan (2019), to outline the governing principle: the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised to quash non-compoundable offences in private/matrimonial disputes when the dispute is wholly settled, balancing ends of justice with public interest; however, serious offences (e.g., Section 307 IPC, Arms Act) may not be quashed merely on settlement. After evaluating the gravity of the offences, the nature of injuries, the parties’ antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the court held that quashing would not adversely affect society. Consequently, the petition is allowed and CC No.114/2022, along with ensuing proceedings, is quashed.
Hyder Ali, the revision petitioner, challenges a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) and the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, Kasaragod, as affirmed in a subsequent appellate order. The case arose from a complaint by Sudhakaran K alleging that the accused borrowed Rs.75,000 and issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 14.12.2001 drawn on the North Malabar Gramin Bank, Bandadka Branch, which was dishonoured for funds insufficiency (Ext.P2). A statutory notice (Ext.P4) was sent and acknowledged, but no reply or return of the cheque amount occurred. The trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 NI Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for two months and to pay Rs.30,000 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. On appeal, the Sessions Court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the conviction while reducing the sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court and increasing the compensation to Rs.75,000 (the cheque amount), with a default sentence of four months. The revision petitioner contends that there was no transaction between him and the complainant and that the cheque was merely security for a loan availed by his father from Kundamkuzhy Finance; no reliable evidence supports this assertion. The court examines the evidence, notes the presumption in Sections 118 and 139 NI Act, and observes that the accused did not provide independent evidence to rebut the presumptions. The court finds no illegality in the appellate judgment and dismisses the revision petition. He is directed to surrender by 15.01.2024 and to pay the compensation; default warrants may be issued if necessary, and records are to be transmitted to the trial court.
Bail Application No.1535 of 2024 This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by Jesbin Joseph, the first accused in Crime No.1417/2023 of the Adimali Police Station, Idukki. The FIR alleges trespass into a spice shop, abusive language, assault, damage to shop articles, and destruction of a car windscreen, with the complainant sustaining nasal bone fracture and property loss of Rs.53,000. The offences alleged include sections 294(b), 451, 323, 324, 427, 506, and 326 read with section 34 IPC. The petitioner claims false implication, being a former employee who demanded wages, and argues that section 326 is not attracted; custodial interrogation is unnecessary and no recovery is required. The prosecution contends that the injuries were grievous, supported by the accident register and CT-scan, and that custodial interrogation and recovery are necessary to complete the investigation, with the possibility of hindrance to a proper inquiry if bail is granted. The Sessions Court order Annexure-2 found the investigation at a preliminary stage and denied pre-arrest bail. The High Court, applying established principles from Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and the Sibbia framework, concluded the case requires careful scrutiny of the evidence and that extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Ultimately, the petition is dismissed, and the accused are not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4182 OF 2025 Abdul Shareef.K, the accused in Crime No.1090/2024 at Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod, moved Bail Application No.4182/2025 before the Kerala High Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The prosecution alleges possession of 2.790 grams of MDMA in a car on 26 December 2024, under NDPS Act sections 22(b) and 29(1). The case portrays an ‘intermediate’ narcotic quantity, and the final report has been filed; co-accused is already on bail. The petitioner has remained in custody since 26.12.2024 and there are no criminal antecedents as per the IO’s report. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but conceded absence of antecedents. The court noted the seriousness of the allegation but concluded that the quantity falls short of attracting the stringent rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act; in the circumstances, bail could be granted with stringent conditions. Relying on established bail principles that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the court cited Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement to justify a favorable order. The judge directed provisions for bond, sureties, appearance, non-evasion, travel restrictions, and potential cancellation for violation. The bail petition is allowed, with the petitioner to be released on bail subject to conditions and monitoring by the jurisdictional court.
Shijo, the appellant, challenges MACA No. 2449 of 2017 arising from OP(MV) No.132 of 2013 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, which awarded Rs.7,14,151 with 9% interest for injuries sustained in a 19.08.2012 accident. The Tribunal held the driver negligent and computed compensation after examining medical records (Exts. A7–A14, A key discharge and disability certificate Ext C1). The principal dispute on appeal was the claimant’s income; the Tribunal fixed Rs.10,137 per month based on Ext. A13, while the insurer argued for a lower notional income of Rs.8,500 per month in line with Ramachandrappa. The High Court, while acknowledging the Ramachandrappa principle, upheld the Tribunal’s income fixation since it was based on credible evidence and not challenged. The court applied the statutory framework for damages: 12% permanent disability, 40% future prospects (per Pranay Sethi) and a multiplier of 17 (per Sarla Verma). It revised several heads, increasing pain and suffering from Rs.45,000 to Rs.75,000, loss of amenities from Rs.25,000 to Rs.50,000, and permanent disability to Rs.3,47,415, while adjusting loss of income to Rs.50,685. Medical expenses remained Rs.3,51,547. The tribunal’s total was recalculated to Rs.8,96,147. The appeal is allowed in part; the insurer is directed to deposit Rs.8,96,147 with interest at 8% from the petition date within two months, with disbursement to the claimant thereafter.
This is a Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 (Shihabudheen and Hamsa) seeking to quash C.C. No. 622/2022 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam, for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 201 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges that on 25.08.2022 at about 21:30 hours, the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, restrained respondents 2 and 3 and attacked them with weapons, causing injuries. The petition relies on amicable settlement evidenced by Annexures A3 and A4, contending that the entire dispute has been resolved and proceedings should be terminated to foster peace and ends of justice. The court directed the investigating officer to record the defacto complainant’s statement to verify the settlement’s genuineness and whether there are any impediments to terminating the proceedings. The Public Prosecutor raised reservations about quashing purely due to settlement but noted no other transgressions and that the respondents express no enduring grievances. The court relies on Supreme Court precedents, notably State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and related decisions, to hold that Section 482 CrPC quashing is permissible for non-compoundable, private offences where the dispute is settled and there is no societal impact; however, serious offences (e.g., 307 IPC, Arms Act) may not be quashed. Given the gravity, injuries, lack of serious antecedents, and amicable settlement, the court allows the Crl.M.C and quashes the final report and proceedings (CC 622/2022). Annexures A2-A4 are appended.
This writ petition (WP(C) No. 7610/2023) is filed by Bindu R, an HSST (English) at Mattannur Higher Secondary School, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P4 and P7 as unjust and to declare her appointment as HSST (English) in Mattannur HSS approved with effect from 15.07.2021. The petitioner, who began as UPSA in 1996 and was promoted to HST in 1998, was appointed HSST on 15.07.2021 to fill a vacancy created by a retirement in 2020 (Ext. P1). She contends there were two HSST (English) vacancies in the 7th respondent’s school, one filled by transfer (hers) and the other by direct recruitment (Navya P.K.). The 6th respondent’s Ext. P4 order purportedly withheld approval due to the pendency of W.P.(C). No. 16740/2022 and the alleged absence of a valid selection committee for appointment by transfer. The petitioner asserts that Ext. P9 (this Court’s judgment) and Ext. P8/Govt. Orders authorize by-transfer appointments without a selection committee and that Ext. P7’s interim order only stated appointments would be subject to the writ petition, not to denial of her appointment. Ext. P10 (appeal) remains unconsidered. The government has issued Exts. P8 and P11 (GO 16/2023). The court directs the 2nd respondent to consider Ext. P10 with notice, and to take Exts. P8, P11 and Ext. P9 into account, directing compliance and cure.”
The petitioner, Indira, is the appellant in MACA No. 1162 of 2014 arising from an award in O.P.(M.V.) No.84 of 2011 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for injuries sustained on 17 December 2009 when she was a pillion rider on a scooter driven by the 1st respondent. The Tribunal found negligence on the driver and awarded a total compensation of Rs 5,51,871 against the insurer, with the insurer directed to pay. The appellant contends that the quantum of compensation is not just and reasonable and that the Tribunal erred in the assessment of the notional income and other heads of damages. The key legal arguments hinge on notional income and the correct application of Supreme Court precedents. The appellant argues, relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, that the notional income in 2009 should be Rs 7,000 per month for a coolie; she also seeks enhancement of compensation heads such as loss of earning (to reflect higher notional income), future prospects (10%), disability (45%), pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and extra nourishment, guided by Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma. The Respondents contend the Tribunal’s assessment was reasonable and oppose higher figures. The High Court, after examining the evidence (Exts. A1–A11, C1) and applying the cited precedents, re-calculates the figures, resulting in a total enhanced compensation of Rs 9,48,311. The appeal is allowed in part, with the insurer directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest and costs within two months, and the Tribunal to disburse after deposit.
CRL.A No. 988 of 2016; CRA(V) Nos. 62 of 2017 and 107 of 2017 This is a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court arising from Cr.L.A. No. 988 of 2016 and connected appeals (CRL.A. Nos. 62 of 2017 and 107 of 2017) challenging an acquittal in respect of a 22.01.2015 incident at Vellur, Nadapuram (Kozhikode district) in which 1–17 accused faced charges tied to a violent clash between DYFI/ CPM and other groups, resulting in the death of Shibin and injuries to several others. The trial court had acquitted all 17 accused; the State (appellant) and some victims filed appeals seeking reversal of the acquittals, while the victims’ appeals were pursued in part. The High Court finally delivered judgment on 04.10.2024. It held that the acquittal of accused 1–6, 15 and 16 was vitiated and that there was credible ocular and medical-forensic evidence of involvement in the crime by these accused, forming an unlawful assembly with a common object to murder. Accordingly, the court convicted these accused under Sections 143, 148, 326, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC, while others were left acquitted. The judgment discusses the standard of appellate interference with acquittals, reliability of eyewitnesses, the role of light at the scene, and delay in FIR, and imposes concurrent sentences including life imprisonment for the most serious offense, with compensation orders for victims. The matter reflects extensive use of forensic reports and evidence, and directs immediate production and sentencing.
WP(C) Nos.12209 and 20591 of 2022 These two writ petitions challenge the process and outcome of liquidation and attempted transfer of assets of defunct cooperative banks in Kozhikode. The petitioner, Naduvannur Regional Co‑operative Bank Ltd., sought finalization of liquidation of the defunct Naduvannur Service Co‑operative Bank Ltd. No. LL 68 and transfer of assets and liabilities to itself as per a 2011 general body resolution. The liquidator had already handed over assets and liabilities and submitted Ext.P1; earlier writ petitions challenged revival and resulted in the Joint Registrar’s orders rejecting revival, and this Court’s Ext.P7 judgment directing the Joint Registrar and Assistant Registrar to complete proceedings within six months. Meanwhile, Kavunthara Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., a rival applicant, lodged representations that assets should not be transferred and that the liquidation must follow proper winding up procedures under Sections 72, 73 and Rule 69 of the Kerala Co‑operative Societies Act, and that the 14‑cent land and building valuations were improper. The Government issued Ext.P10 setting aside the Joint Registrar’s Ext.P4 order; the petitioners challenged Ext.P10 before this Court. The court, after hearing, held that Ext.P7 directions were final; it set aside Ext.P10 and directed the Government to reconsider the matter within three months, affording hearing to both sides. It emphasizes that judicial directions cannot be ignored and that corrections, if necessary, must occur within the proper channels.
Sebastian Mathew, the petitioner, seeks to lift a debit freeze on his bank account no. 50200092875310 held with HDFC Bank, Ponkkunnam Branch, allegedly frozen pursuant to a police requisition. The writ petition, filed in the Kerala High Court, contends that the freezing is illegal and arbitrary, depriving the petitioner of access to funds necessary for daily living. The bank records indicate the blocked amount is Rs. 600, with the bank asserting the freeze followed a requisition from the 4th respondent (police). The court cites Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) to emphasize that freezes must be confined to the amount specified in the order and that banks should, after receiving police information, either continue or withdraw the freeze within a defined timeframe. It also relies on Nazeer K.T v. Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC Online 768) and other authorities such as State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Husen to underscore the necessity of timely reporting under Section 102 Cr.P.C. (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and judicial guidance. The High Court disposes of the petition by directing the bank to confine the freeze to the certified amount, to obtain police confirmation on continuance, and to lift the debit freeze if no timely information is received within two months.
This is a bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, by Somanadhan M, the 11th accused in Crime No.150/2025 of Aruvikkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The FIR/complaint alleges offences under Sections 409 and 420 r/w 34 IPC, arising from alleged misappropriation of Rs.24,74,21,480 between 01.04.2021 and 31.05.2024 by the petitioner and other accused, while handling affairs of Rajiv Gandhi Residence Welfare Co-operative Society, Nedumangad. The court had earlier directed the petitioner to appear for interrogation before the Investigating Officer (IO) on 04.04.2025 to enable a report on whether custodial interrogation was necessary, and had directed that he shall not be arrested till the next posting date. On 07.04.2025, the Public Prosecutor reported that the petitioner surrendered and could be directed to cooperate with the investigation; if arrest is contemplated, bail should be granted on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties. The court granted bail with conditions: the petitioner must appear within two weeks for interrogation, cooperate, refrain from inducement or threat, not leave India without court permission, and refrain from committing a similar offence; the order notes that the observations are limited to the bail question and relies on principles from Anzar Azeez and Sushila Aggarwal regarding investigation and recoveries during bail. The prosecution and victims may move to cancel bail on violation.
Akbarali, the petitioner, seeks bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in Crime No.336/2025 of Valanchery Police Station, Malappuram, alleging offences under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and under Section 20 r/w 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, for allegedly transporting river sand in a lorry without a valid permit. The petitioner argues that even if the allegations are accepted, no offence is made out, and he is prepared to comply with conditions if bail is granted. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail. The court recalls its 31.12.2021 order in BA 9571/2021 that the offences under Sections 20 and 23 of the KPBRSA 2001 are bail-able, and that where river-sand theft is involved the IPC may not apply. Citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Manish Sisodia, Anzar Azeez, and Sushila Aggarwal, the court reiterates the bail principle that the rule is bail and the exception is jail, ensuring fair trial. The court grants bail with stringent conditions: appearance before the Investigating Officer within two weeks, bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, compliance with further interrogations, no leaving India without permission, no re-offending, cooperation, and possible recoveries, with a caveat that violation can lead to cancellation. The order closes with the judge’s signature.
The petitioners, who hold top positions in the Temple Advisory Committee of Thiruvarppu Sree Krishna Swami Temple (a temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board, Kottayam Group), challenge the February 28, 2025 order appointing an Adhoc Committee to conduct the annual temple festival. They seek a declaration that respondents 1–4 have no authority to form an Adhoc Committee while the Temple Advisory Committee remains in office and that respondents 5–9 are unfit to be members of any temple committee. They also pray to quash Ext.P9 (show cause) and Ext.P10 (show cause) notices. The court’s narration records that the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act vests administration in the Board (Section 3), imposes duties on the Board (Section 15A), and provides for Temple Advisory Committees under Section 31A, with rules on membership and objectives. It cites Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee [2023 (2) KHC 290] and Rajalakshmi v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KHC 492] to underscore the Board’s duty to ensure regular rites and the Advisory Committee’s assisting role, subject to the traditional usage of each temple. Noting notices and reports (Ext.P8, Ext.P9), the court ultimately holds that the Adhoc Committee has resigned, and directs departmental management of the festival pending final decision within timelines, while leaving broader contentions open for appropriate forum.
CRL.A. Nos.2544, 2545 and 2581 of 2009 These appeals arise from a 2009 judgment of the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, which convicted accused Nos.2 to 4 for conspiring to cheat the State Bank of India by discounting nine draft bills with forged lorry receipts and related documents, while acquitting accused Nos.1 and 6. Accused No.5 is the proprietor of the entities involved and faces separate scrutiny. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy among accused Nos.2 to 5 to misappropriate funds from the SBI by presenting nine discounting requests supported by forged consignments and forged consignee copies. The trial court’s findings rested on documentary evidence (Exts. P1–P41 and related records), cautioned testimony from bank officials (PWs 1, 2, and 29, a handwriting expert), and the purported forged documents that connected the lorry receipts, invoices and discount bills to the same fraud. The High Court affirmed that nine discounting transactions used false documents to obtain money fraudulently from the bank and that conspiracy could be inferred from the cumulative documentary and testimonial evidence. While maintaining that expert opinion alone cannot sustain conviction in all cases, the court distinguished certain authorities and relied on corroborative material to convict accused Nos.2 to 4. Accused No.5’s conviction was set aside. The appeals were allowed in part, with lenient sentencing for the convicted, and accused No.5 acquitted. The matter was disposed by a common judgment.
This is a revision petition filed under Section 125 CrPC in the Kerala High Court challenging an interim maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Mavelikkara (MC No.6/2020 with Cr.M.P. No.16/2020). The respondents, being the wife and the son of the revision petitioner, sought maintenance from him during the pendency of the proceedings, claiming a monthly amount of Rs. 7000 for the wife and Rs. 4000 for the minor son. The revision petitioner, a Havildar (Signals) in the Indian Army, contends that he was never served with notice of the maintenance application or the interim application, and that the Family Court proceeded without affording him an opportunity to be heard, relying on submissions by counsel who appeared on his behalf without proper vakalat. The High Court earlier stayed proceedings subject to the petitioner depositing arrears and continuing interim maintenance, and directed a report from the Family Court regarding service of notice. On review, the Court found service of notices to be non-existent, noting that the counsel appeared in the petition without valid vakalat and that the order was passed in the petitioner’s absence. The Court set aside the impugned order, but directed that interim maintenance continue and that the parties be given an opportunity to object, with further disposal directed within 30 days and in compliance with Supreme Court guidance on asset disclosure.
This original petition (OP(C) No.648 of 2020) before the Kerala High Court arises from a money suit in which the plaintiff alleges recovery based on Ext.A1 cheque. The defendant admits his signature on the cheque but denies that the other entries were written by him, contending that the cheque was tendered in blank form and later filled in by others. The trial court had placed the matter in a special list and, after the plaintiff examined PW1, the defendant moved IA 1/2020 to send the disputed cheque (Ext.A1) for expert opinion. The trial court dismissed IA 1/2020, holding that the request to forward the cheque for expert examination should be made before trial and that there were no admitted writings to compare. The petitioner urged that expert analysis was crucial to establish his defence. The respondent contended the belated application was an attempt to protract the proceedings. The High Court, recognizing the defendant’s admission of his signature, did not fault the trial court’s approach but emphasized the right to adduce evidence and cited Kalyani Bhaskar, Francis, Murari Lal, Lalit Popli, and S. Sivadas to articulate the governing principles. It held that bona fide requests for handwriting comparison should be considered and, if asserted, may be entertained under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 or Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, with the trial court’s discretion preserved. The petition is disposed of with these directions, leaving room for a future application under the stated provisions.
The petitioners challenge the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam's actions under the SARFAESI Act, arguing that the ongoing possession proceedings under Section 14 target a secured asset that includes a residential building and inhabited premises, which require cautious judicial handling. The litigation traces the loan nature to KCC Crop Finance secured by 128.75 acres of rubber plantation and a separate agricultural short-term loan after floods in 2018 damaged crops, resulting in the accounts being declared NPA and notices under Section 13(2) SARFAESI issued. Despite remittances between 2022 and 2023, Ext.P4 possession notice was issued and Ext.P7 letter declined time and instalment relief. The petitioners moved SA 418/2023 in the DRT-II and IA 2627/2023 for stay, but the Tribunal proceeded with Section 14 and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed ex parte for possession. The Court notes the Tribunal’s erroneous reasoning that no residential building exists on the secured asset, observes misapprehension of material facts, and finds Ext.P16 perverse. The High Court intervenes under Article 227, sets aside Ext.P16, and directs the Tribunal to reconsider IA Nos. 2627/2023 and 3262/2023 in SA 418/2023 after hearing, with dispossession of the residential premises deferred pending fresh orders. The matter is remanded for fresh adjudication.
This is a bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, filed by four petitioners accused in Crime No. 290/2025 of Enath Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The petitioners are charged with offences under Sections 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 75 and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, arising from alleged trespass into the de facto complainant’s sit-out on 13.03.2025, catching the de facto complainant’s hand through a window, and damaging window panes and flower plots causing damages of Rs.10,000. The petitioners contend the allegations are false and point to disputes involving the husband of the de facto complainant, who served as a temple committee member, as a motive for the case. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, noting that two accused have criminal antecedents, and emphasizing the seriousness of the offences. The court, while acknowledging the gravity of the alleged offences, applies the bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Relying on Davis P. R. v. State of Kerala and later precedents including Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Manish Sisodia v. CBI, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State, it grants bail with conditions: deposition of damages, interrogation within two weeks, bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, reporting to the IO, and travel restrictions. The court also preserves the option to cancel bail for violations, aligning with the broader jurisprudence on personal liberty and fair trial.
