BAIL APPL. NO. 6983 OF 2021 This bail application concerns accused 1 and 2 in Crime No. 458 of 2020 registered at Tanur Police Station, Malappuram District, seeking release on bail under section 439 CrPC. The offences include 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon), 307 (attempted murder), 302 (murder), 188 (disobedience), and 269 IPC, in addition to Section 4(2)(f) read with Section 5 of the Kerala Epidemic Diseases Ordinance, 2020 in the wake of the Covid-19 lockdown. The incident allegedly occurred on 29.05.2020 near Sheeba Hotel, Tirur, when, due to personal enmity, the accused invited the informant and the deceased to a place, violated lockdown restrictions, and assaulted them with knives: the deceased died; the informant sustained injuries and gave a statement. Accused 1 has been in custody since 12.06.2020 and accused 2 since 01.06.2020. The petition argues innocence and contends continued detention is unnecessary, especially as the final report has been submitted. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, asserting grave offences, prior criminal antecedents of both petitioners, risk of witness intimidation, and possible repetition of offences if released, noting that committal proceedings are pending. The court cites Prasanta Kumar Sarkar and Mahipal to outline bail factors, including gravity, likelihood of absconding, evidence tampering, and public interest. After considering the circumstances, the court finds that release on bail would endanger the course of justice and the witnesses; hence, the bail application is dismissed, and the petitioners remain in custody.
BINOJ.K.M. @ BIJEESH, the petitioner herein, seeks bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in Crime No. 246/2025 of Kalladicode Police Station, Palakkad, alleging offences punishable under Section 8 read with Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The accompanying material indicates that on 24.03.2025 at about 3:45 PM the victim, a 12-year-old child, visited the accused’s barber shop; the accused allegedly touched the victim’s private parts with sexual intent and induced the victim to touch his own private parts. The petition was taken up on 11.04.2025 before Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan. The petitioner has been in custody since 28.03.2025. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed bail, urging that the offence is very serious. The court, while acknowledging the gravity of the allegation, noted that the maximum punishment under the statute is up to five years and that the accused has already spent a substantial (though limited) period in custody. Relying on the established bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the court cited Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala to underline the approach that a deserved bail should be granted. Consequently, the application is allowed with stringent conditions: bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, prohibition on leaving India without permission, prohibition on committing any similar offence, and cooperation with the investigation. The observations are limited to the bail petition, with the possibility of cancellation if conditions are violated, and the matter is disposed accordingly.
On 19 November 2008, Anil Kumar sustained grievous injuries when a KSRTC bus knocked him down during a road accident. He filed OP(MV) No.106/2009 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal, seeking about Rs 4,16,000 in compensation, but the Tribunal awarded Rs 2,32,474. The appellant contends the Tribunal erred in fixing notional income at Rs 4,000 per month, arguing he was a carpenter earning around Rs 5,000 monthly, and relies on Ramchandrappa v. Manager to advocate a higher notional income (minimum Rs 6,500 in 2008). He also disputes the 64-day inpatient period, pointing to Exts. A1 and A5–A9 which show 83 days of hospitalisation, and argues that amounts awarded for Extra Nourishment, Bystander’s Expenses, Pain and Suffering, and Loss of Amenities are too low given the severity of injuries. The medical records indicate fractures of the right leg with a 15% disability certificate, though the Tribunal held 14% due to validity concerns. The KSRTC contends the award was correct given the evidence from 2008. The Kerala High Court partly allows the appeal: revises notional income to Rs 5,000, recognises 83 days hospitalisation, increases amounts for Extra Nourishment and Bystander’s Expenses, and enhances Pain and Suffering, Loss of Amenities, and Loss of Earnings; accepts 14% disability; directs payment of enhanced sums with interest and costs.
These petitions arise from eviction proceedings in which landlords sought vacant possession on grounds of bona fide need for their own occupation under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court, Kozhikode, had declined to remand the Commissioner's report and sketch submitted for local inspection, prompting the tenants to approach this Court. The Core legal question is whether the original petitions can be challenged in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution or on a statutory basis under Section 18 of the BRC Act, and whether remittal of the Commissioner's report is warranted for the purpose of clarifying the width of the access path to the petition schedule properties. The petitions contend that the property lies in a locality with restricted access and that the Commission report did not address the width of the alleys or direct vehicular access, casting doubt on the landlords’ bona fide need. The Judgment discusses the scope of appeal under Section 18 of the BRC Act, relying on Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Gokal Chand and contrasts it with Delhi Rent Control Act provisions to determine when an order is appealable. Ultimately, the Court allows the petitions, sets aside the impugned orders, and remits the Commissioner's report for confined purposes, directing prompt local inspection and reporting with a deadline to dispose the matter by 9 April 2021.
Antappan P.A., a clerk in an aided school, superannuated on 31.05.2015, and filed WP(C) No.19429 of 2019 challenging Exts. P5 and P6, by which a time-bound higher grade was found not to be extendable and recovery of alleged excess payments was sought. The petitioner’s counsel relied on Division Bench decisions of this Court (e.g., W.A. No.1469 of 2016) and urged that the principles in White Washer (Rafiq Masih) apply to long-spanned overpayments; he argued the petitioner, a lower-rung employee, acted in bonafide belief that he was entitled to emoluments, and recovering two decades after retirement would be iniquitous and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The State and authorities contended that the petitioner was not entitled to the time-bound higher grade and that undertakings/communications concerning recovery were valid. The Court, after analyzing prior judgments, held that though the petitioner may not be entitled to the time-bound higher grades as per the earlier rulings, the recovery of amounts would be unjust in light of White Washer and related precedents. Ext.P6 was quashed, the grant of the 1999 higher grade held in order, and the terminal benefits to be sanctioned. The respondents are restrained from recovering the alleged excess salary; the petitioner is to submit a representation within three weeks, with eight weeks for decision.
This MACA arises from an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in which Judith (mother of minor Ivan) and co-claimants sought enhancement of compensation for the death of Geo in a road accident on 28 Oct 2016. The Tribunal held the auto-rickshaw driver negligent and held the 2nd respondent insurer liable, exonerating the lorry owner (3rd respondent) and the lorry’s insurer (5th respondent). The petitioners contended that the deceased, a businessman, earned Rs. 30,000 per month, but the Tribunal fixed a notional income of Rs. 20,000 due to lack of evidence proving actual earnings. They relied on Exhibit A11 (Trinity Sales Corporation) to demonstrate income, but no bank passbook or definitive authorization for transactions was produced; licences indicated stocking/sale of sanitary items, but no IT returns or registers were provided. The High Court, while acknowledging the evidentiary gaps, affirmed the Tribunal’s notional income approach, applying the multiplier of 16 (per Sarla Varma) and deducting one-third for personal and living expenses. The court then applied conventional heads for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium under Pranay Sethi, Magma, and related authorities, with escalation, and awarded Rs. 37,74,500 as total compensation with 7% interest from petition date and costs. The appeal is allowed to the extent of enhancing compensation as detailed in the judgment.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5294 OF 2025 The Kerala High Court, in Bail Application No. 5294 of 2025, heard a bail petition filed by Sunesh S.A., the second accused in Crime No. 171/2025 of Poojappura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The case involves offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), including sections 4 r/w 3(a), 6 r/w 5(1), 8 r/w 7, 17 r/w 16 of the POCSO Act, and sections 75, 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 137(2) of BNSS. The victim is a minor aged 17; the juvenile in conflict with the law (1st accused, aged 17) is also alleged to be involved. The prosecution contends the petitioner, aged 20, helped procure a room for the juvenile and the victim, and arranged payment via Google Pay, allegedly facilitating penetrative sexual assault. The petitioner contends he has been in custody since 04.03.2025, is willing to comply with stringent conditions, and asserts there is no explicit rape allegation against him. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail. After hearing, the learned Judge held that bail is permissible with stringent conditions, noting that the 1st accused is a minor and that the core principle is that bail is the rule and jail the exception. The court cites Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement to reinforce the bail principle, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala as applicable law. The order imposes conditions: bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO, restriction on leaving India, and prohibition on committing similar offences. The court explicitly states the observations are limited to the bail petition. The result is a grant of bail on the stated terms.
This Regular First Appeal arises from a money suit based on cheques, filed by the plaintiff against the defendant who admitted borrowing funds and issuing six cheques as security. The trial court decreed a suit for Rs. 8,28,864 (principal Rs. 8,00,000 plus interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit) against the defendant, with costs. The defendant contends that the actual borrowal was Rs. 4,75,000, with interest charged at 60%, that six cheques were given as security (with dates to be filled later), and that the plaintiff misused documents, including a debt acknowledgment letter on a blank stamp paper. He also argues that the cheques were filled only for dates and that filling dates constitutes material alteration. The plaintiff maintains that the money was borrowed around 2006-07 or 2008, that the cheques were presented after demand notices, that the defendant defaulted, and that presumption under Section 118 NI Act applies once the cheque execution is admitted; Section 20 NI Act allows the holder to complete a signed, partly blank cheque. The High Court affirmed the trial court’s appreciation, held that the defendant’s contradictions are unconvincing, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the decree in favour of the plaintiff.
CRL.R.P. No. 805 of 2016 (Corrigendum: C.C.No.289 of 2010) Two idols claimed to be owned by the revision petitioner led to a conviction under Section 53A of the Kerala Police Act, 1960. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Chalakudy held that the idols were antique, 18th‑century and rare, and that the accused failed to account for possession, thus convicting him under 53A and sentencing him to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur, on appeal, affirmed the conviction and sentence, accepting PW2’s testimony that the idols were archaeological and precious. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 does not prohibit possession of antiquities and that PW2 was not a competent person to determine antiquity; further, there was no loss report or proof of ownership. The Public Prosecutor argued that, as a revisional court, the concurrent findings should stand and that the burden is on the possessor to prove ownership. The High Court, after analyzing the Antiquities Act, concluded that possession of antiquities by private individuals is not prohibited; PW2’s testimony was found unreliable and not supported by a final report; the Central Government’s authority to seize antiquities under Sections 23 and 24 was not properly invoked. Hence, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioner, with the idols to be released to him as already directed by the court earlier. The Corrigendum later corrected the C.C. number.
This is a Kerala High Court revision under the KVAT Act challenging the Kerala VAT Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 29.12.2021 in OT Rev No.49/2022. The petitioner, a registered dealer in consumer products, had its 2012-13 assessment reopened under Section 25 after discrepancies were found between annual returns, Form 53 stock statements, and audited statements (Form 13/13A). The Intelligence Officer detected suppression of turnover and differences in interstate purchases, closing stock, and local sales, leading to an Annex. A5 assessment and Annex.V computation. The petitioner’s case was taken to the VAT Tribunal, which upheld most findings but, crucially, rejected the petitioner’s challenge to the alleged miscalculation in defect No.2. The High Court’s examination focuses on whether the Tribunal erred in overlooking the auditor’s certificate and the substantial discrepancy noted in the local sales figure; whether the amendment should be treated as an error requiring revision. The court ultimately partly allows the revision, holding that defect No.2’s figures require recalculation by the assessing authority with due hearing, remanding the matter for reassessment while upholding other aspects of the Tribunal’s conclusions. The judgment underscores the limited revisional jurisdiction and the need for precise numerical corrections in tax assessments.”
MACA Nos. 912 of 2012; MACA Nos. 507 of 2012 Two connected Motor Accident Claims Appeals arise from a common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, concerning fatalities and injuries from a February 25, 2005 accident. In OP(MV) Nos. 696/2005 and 697/2005, the Tribunal held the motorcycle rider to be negligent and dismissed the claims, finding no involvement of the autorickshaw. The appellants (claimants) challenge the award, arguing that the auto’s involvement and police investigation implicating the driver (Ext. A2) establish negligence, while the insurer controverts liability, arguing lack of eyewitness evidence and reliance on the AMVI report (Ext. A5) showing only minor damage. The High Court, after detailed scrutiny, notes that Ext. A1 FIR was narrated by a non-eyewitness friend and not by a direct observer, and that Ext. A5 AMVI does not conclusively prove auto involvement. Citing Pazhaniammal (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal, 2011 (3) KLT 648), the court treats police final reports as prima facie proof of negligence in the absence of contra evidence under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On this basis, the court holds the accident to be the result of the autorickshaw driver’s negligence, sets aside the Tribunal’s finding against the motorcycle rider, and remands for quantum. The insurer’s coverage remains intact, and quantum will be assessed afresh with opportunity for further evidence.
The petitioner Sinoj Thomas, a grantee of a Letter of Intent to establish a Quarrying Unit in Maloth Village, Kasaragod District, challenges Ext.P12 (24.03.2023) denial of quarrying permission by the Balal Grama Panchayat, despite pre-existing approvals: LOI in 2017 (Ext.P1), Mining Plan (Ext.P2) approved by the Geologist, Environmental Clearance (Ext.P3, 25.04.2018), Consent to Operate (Ext.P6) and Explosives Licence (Ext.P7). The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 on 17.02.2023 under Sections 232 and 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, with licence fees paid, seeking permission to establish a quarrying unit on 2.3310 hectares. The Panchayat rejected Ext.P12 on the basis of a new policy opposing new quarries. The petitioner asserts lack of hearing, and argues amendments to Section 233 curtailed Panchayat power; The respondents contend that residents raised objections, NOC from EIA Authority was problematic, and clarifications from the District Collector were pending; They challenge joinder issues and rely on statutory processes and expert authorities. The High Court, after examining the amendments and precedents including Tomy Thomas and Ramapuram, finds Ext.P12 illegal and ultravires; it sets aside the decision and directs the Panchayat to grant permission and the District to issue the necessary licence, affirming the primacy of expert statutory authorities in environmental and safety matters. It emphasizes that decisions of expert bodies should not be undermined by local bodies, enabling projects permitted under law.
This criminal revision petition is filed by Michael @ Kunju Kunju against the conviction recorded under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act for allegedly carrying 4½ litres of arrack in the bund of Kanjirapuzha Sub Canal on 17.05.2004. The Trial Court convicted him under these sections and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with a default sentence. The Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-III), Palakkad, on appeal, upheld the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence to one year of rigorous imprisonment, leaving the fine intact. The Revision Court, however, after hearing the counsel and Public Prosecutor, found multiple material defects in the prosecution case: non-examination of CW5 (the Excise Inspector who registered the crime), unexplained delay in registering the offence (occurring a day after seizure) and in preparing Ext. P4 seizure list, absence of specimen impression of the seal on the sample in Ext. P2, lack of complete details in Ext. P7 regarding the forwarding of the sample to the chemical examiner, and a delay in filing the final report (until 05.02.2007) contrary to Section 50 of the Abkari Act. Relying on Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala (2020) and Chandran, Kumaran, and Moothedath Sivadasan, the court held these defects fatal to the prosecution. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, the accused acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., bail bond cancelled, and the petitioner set at liberty. The petition stands allowed.
This is a criminal revision petition filed by the accused, Kuttan @ Sankaran, challenging the conviction under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act by the Sessions Court, Palakkad, and the affirmation of that conviction by the appellate court. The prosecution case, based on a patrol in Ottapalam on 22.10.2009, was that the accused attempted to flee when an Excise party intercepted him while he carried a MO1 can containing illicit arrack; a sample and the can were seized and sent for chemical analysis, which allegedly showed 25.82% ethyl alcohol. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused to one year’s imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, with a default sentence. On appeal, the Sessions Court upheld the conviction and sentence. In this Kerala High Court criminal revision, the judge re-examines the chain of custody, the delay in filing the final report, and the laboratory chain-of-custody. The High Court notes several crucial inconsistencies: delay in questioning and investigation, absence of tamper-proof despatch documentation, and gaps in the forwarding note and forwarding of the sample to the laboratory. Relying on Chandran v. State, Kumaran v. State of Kerala, and Krishnadas v. State of Kerala, the court deems the delays and procedural irregularities fatal to the prosecution, and ultimately acquits the revision petitioner, setting aside the conviction and ordering release. The order also cancels bail and allows the revision petition.
This bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is filed by two accused in Crime No.1614/2023 of Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode, alleging offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing 51.9 kg of ganja found in a car. The petitioners were arrested on 27.12.2023. The respondents opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the commercial quantity involved. The petitioners relied on recent Supreme Court precedents—Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024 Live Law SC 416), Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. State of West Bengal (SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769 of 2022), Hasanujjaman v. State of West Bengal (SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023)—arguing that prolonged incarceration beyond one year and four months can dilute the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court analyzed these authorities, noting that, while NDPS Section 37(1)(b) imposes a bar on bail in commercial quantity cases, Article 21 rights and delays attributable to prosecutorial conduct can compel reconsideration of bail. The court also cites Shuaib A.S v. State of Kerala to discuss Section 311 Cr.P.C. observations. Observing that prosecution lethargy contributed to non-disposal, and considering the petitioners have been in custody since 27.12.2023, the court disposed of the bail application with directions to file a fresh application within three weeks, and for the trial court to decide it within two weeks in light of the cited principles.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal under MACA No. 2095 of 2016 from the Kerala High Court. The appeal challenges the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, award in O.P.(M.V.) No.706/2009 arising from a 18 May 2009 road accident that killed Surendran, a government school teacher. The Tribunal held the driver negligent and awarded Rs.19,16,568 as total compensation to the wife and children. The insurer contested the quantum, mainly arguing on the proper income of the deceased and on the application of multiplier in a government employee’s case. The respondents/claimants relied on established Supreme Court principles, contending full salary with future prospects be used for loss of dependency, applying 15% future prospects, multiplier 11, and deducting personal living expenses by 1/4. They also sought extended awards for loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium, and love/affection. The High Court examined whether the income, future prospects, and the multiplier were correctly applied, and whether any heads of compensation (pain and suffering, love/affection) should be adjusted in light of relevant precedents such as Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, Somwati, Jyni, and Jaysree. The Court ultimately modifies several heads, reduces pain and suffering, and recomputes the total to Rs.19,36,415, directing deposit within two months with 8% interest, and disbursement per Tribunal ratio.
This is a bail application (BAIL APPL. NO. 4591 of 2025) filed by Afsal K.A, the accused in Crime No.1959 of 2023 of Aluva East Police Station, Ernakulam, under sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act for possession of 59.710 grams of MDMA (later identified as Methamphetamine). The petitioner has been in custody since 03.12.2023 (about 1 year and 4 months). The Court had earlier directed consideration of bail in light of Apex Court precedents (Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. State of West Bengal; Hasanujjaman v. State of West Bengal) and the Kerala High Court decision in Shuaib A.S v. State of Kerala, along with Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala. The Respondent opposed bail, arguing the gravity of offences and ongoing investigation. The Court notes that NDPS Act Section 37(1)(b) provides a statutory embargo on bail in commercial quantity contraband cases, but admits that prolonged incarceration can militate against Article 21 of the Constitution, justifying relaxation in appropriate cases per the cited precedents. Relying on these authorities and the sequence of prior orders ( Annexure-5 ), the Court finds that bail ought to be considered for the petitioner. The order ultimately implements the principle that personal liberty must be balanced with prosecution’s interests, and grants bail with stringent conditions to ensure cooperation and prevent evasion or re-offending.
Criminal Appeal No.1616 of 2006 Viswanathan, the sole accused, challenges a Kalpetta Sessions Court conviction under sections 326 and 324 IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, arising from an incident on 12 August 1995 at Meenangadi, Wayanad. The trial court found him guilty of stabbing PW2, causing grievous hurt, and of a lesser hurt to PW1, while aquitting him of the atrocity charge under the POA. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of ₹15,000 for section 326 IPC, six months for section 324 IPC, with concurrent sentences and ₹12,000 compensation to PW2; a set-off under section 428 CrPC was allowed. CW3 was not examined, and Ext.P3 lacks precise injury details; the weapon was not recovered. The High Court scrutinised the evidence of PW1–PW12 and the medical records (Ext.P2–P5, PW6’s testimony) and upheld the trial court’s verdict, rejecting defense arguments and noting the gravity of PW2’s injuries. The court also held that recovery of the weapon is not a sine qua non to convict and declined to reduce the sentence, considering the offender’s age and the nature of the offence. The appeal, on this record, is dismissed as having no merit, with interlocutory applications closed.
MACA 1233/2015; MACA 1282/2015; MACA 1499/2015 This judgment consolidates three Motor Accident Claims Appeals arising from a 10 April 2005 accident involving a tempo van (KL-8/F/637) which injured a two-year-old girl, Angel Rose. The case began as a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, filed by the minor’s mother seeking compensation for severe injuries including paraplegia and 90% permanent disability. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, after evidence and medical records (Exts A1–A14, B1–B3), held the driver negligent, with the vehicle having no valid permit at the time, and awarded Rs. 12,55,123, directing recovery of the amount from the insurer (United India Insurance) and from the owner for lack of permit. The petitioner challenged the quantum, arguing higher compensation was warranted given 90% disability, permanent bedridden state, need for a bystander, and loss of amenities, applying notional income fixed for 2005 (per Ramachandrappa) and Supreme Court precedents like Kajal and Mallikarjun. The appeals were heard together on 13.3.2025 and judgment delivered on 9.4.2025. The High Court recalculated compensation at Rs 35,03,123, enhancing heads such as pain, loss of amenities, disability, and future medical expenses, while holding that the trial court’s application of Master Mallikarjun required distinction in light of exceptional circumstances. It also upheld liability of the insurer and permitted recovery from the owner where applicable. The court then directed deposit of the enhanced amount and laid out disbursement and future conduct.”
BAIL APPL. NO. 5003 OF 2025 This is a Kerala High Court bail application under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita/Nagarik Suraksha regime (BNSS) filed by three petitioners – M.K Devadasan, Riyas A.K, and Suresh Babu V.T – challenging an FIR in Crime No.104/2025 of Mukkom Police Station. The informant, a motel manager, alleged that the petitioners trespassed into the informant’s accommodation on the motel premises and, in a sequence that involved restraint and fear, the informant jumped from a balcony to escape; one petitioner allegedly attempted rape, while others are said to have aided the act. Allegations are punishable under sections 332(c), 74, 78, 62 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The petitioners have been in custody since 05.02.2025. A prior Bail application (3349/2025) was rejected; later, after seeking permission to withdraw and refile, the present bail petition was filed. The court acknowledges the seriousness of the charges but reiterates the long-standing bail principle—that bail is the rule and jail the exception—citing jurisprudence from Chidambaram P v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala. The court grants bail on stringent conditions: bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, restrictions on travel, no commission of similar offences, and other typical safeguards. The order also notes that violations may lead to cancellation of bail, and references Anzar Azeez’s principle. Sd/P.V.Kunhikrishnan J.
