This is a Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C.No.1810 of 2025) in the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam, disposed by Justice C. Jayachandran on 24 March 2025. Petitioners/accused nos. 1 and 3 (JiJo Thomas @ Shafi and Vincent) challenge the final report in Crime No.1177/2015 of Vadakkekad Police Station, Thrissur, now pending as CC No.2729/2016 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kunnamkulam, and seek to quash all proceedings. The petition is supported by records including Annexure-4 (Adalat/Lok Adalat settlement dated 05.08.2022) and the defacto complainant’s statement that she does not wish to continue with the case. The offences alleged are under Sections 498A, 420 and 506(i) IPC. The petition relies on the High Court’s and Supreme Court’s evolving interpretation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 of BNSS, 2023), and on precedents such as B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, to argue that settlement can justify quashing where continued prosecution is futile and ends of justice require it. The Respondents (State) oppose, but the court notes the absence of the defacto complainant’s affidavit is offset by IO statements and Lok Adalat. The court holds that 420 and 506(i) are compoundable, the settlement is genuine and bonafide, and quashes the final report and all further proceedings against all accused, observing that continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process and would not serve justice.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3740 OF 2025 This bail application, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, concerns the fourth accused in Crime No. 80/2025 of Chalakudy Police Station, Thrissur. The prosecution alleges the accused, along with others, received Rs. 27,50,000 by offering a job in the UK; the job was not provided and the money was not repaid, though a portion was allegedly returned to victim No.2; the defacto complainant did not receive any amount. The petitioner contends that he had no direct involvement, and he is willing to comply with any conditions the court may impose if bail is granted. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application but, upon inquiry, stated that there are no alleged criminal antecedents against the petitioner in the report and that other accused had not been arrested. The court recalls Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another, noting that offences with a maximum punishment of up to seven years should be approached with caution, and that arrest must be justified with reasons in writing. The court discusses a broader principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram, Siddharth, Manish Sisodia, and Joginder Kumar to emphasise personal liberty and the need for proper justification for arrest. Accordingly, the court allows the bail with stringent conditions: appearance before the IO within two weeks for interrogation, bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, passport surrender, non-leave-India restriction, no similar offences, and cooperation with investigation; the order notes that bail for other accused will be considered separately, and that breach may result in cancellation of bail, with reliance on Anzar Azeez for principle.
CRL.M.C No. 8095 of 2022; CRL.M.C No. 2621 of 2023 This is a Kerala High Court criminal misc. petition involving two petitioners (the 1st accused, V. Jayanandakumar, and the 8th accused, Santhosh Antony) challenging the validity of a charge sheet and pending proceedings in CC No.7/2022 before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, in an offence under PC Act and IPC. The prosecution alleges a conspiracy among Vigilance and Commercial Taxes officials to reduce tax liability of M/s Nano Excel Enterprises from 12.5% to 4%, resulting in a shortfall of Rs 6,05,61,144 for the year 2009-2010 and an illicit Rs 1.5 crore paid as bribe to accused Nos.1–4, with accused Nos.6 and 8 facilitating the transaction; a car owned by accused No.8 is claimed to have transported the bribe money to Pearl Regency hotel, Thrissur. The offences cited include Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Section 120B IPC. The petitioners contend lack of materials to constitute a prima facie offence, reliance on earlier writ petition grounds under KVAT and issue estoppel, and protection under the Judges Protection Act. They argue the 1st accused did not receive bribes and that the 8th accused’s involvement is limited to vehicle usage. The High Court cites Bhajan Lal categories and Digambar to emphasize careful scrutiny at this stage. It disposes by dismissing the 8095/2022 petition against the 1st accused while allowing 2621/2023 to quash proceedings against the 8th accused in CC7/2022.
This is a criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging Annexure A3, an order dated 7 February 2024 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumangad, which committed a case registered as Crime No.1766/2018 to the Sessions Court and dismissed CMP No.16060/2023, holding that the matter is to be tried by the Children’s Court under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (JJ Act). The petitioner contends that the amendment introducing Section 86(4) of the JJ Act, effective 01 September 2022, is not retrospective and that, since the occurrence occurred on 04 December 2018, the Magistrate alone has jurisdiction and the matter should not be transferred to the Children’s Court. The Public Prosecutor argues that Section 86(4) applies to pending cases as well, making the Children’s Court the proper forum. The court surveys pre- and post-amendment provisions of the JJ Act (and related Acts) and cites decisions emphasizing retrospective operation of procedural amendments unless expressly or impliedly stated otherwise, as well as the principle that forum is procedural and not an accrued right. The High Court ultimately holds that 86(4) governs triability, confirms Annexure A3, and dismisses the petition, thereby affirming the order transferring the case to the Children’s Court for trial.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1566 OF 2024 Abdul Rahul P, the 9th accused in Crime No. 965/2023 of the Vengara Police Station, Malappuram, moved this Court under Section 438 CrPC for pre-arrest bail. The offences alleged include Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 308 IPC, arising from an incident on 27 November 2023 in which a tipper lorry was intercepted and multiple accused allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant and others. The petitioner contends false implication, highlighting a counter-case against the defacto complainant and the eight co-accused; the inclusion of Section 308 is said to be aimed at denying bail. He asserts there is no need for custodial interrogation; he is prepared to comply with stringent conditions. The prosecution concedes that there is a counter-case arising from the same incident. After considering Annexure 3 wound certificate indicating that the injuries are not grievous, the learned Judge found that custodial interrogation is not necessary and granted pre-arrest bail subject to conditions. The order requires surrender within ten days, production before the Investigating Officer if arrested, Rs.50,000 bail bond with two sureties, cooperation with investigation, no witness intimidation, and prohibition from committing another offence while on bail. The court retains power to cancel bail for violation and permits modification of conditions; it cites Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another to authorize recoveries while on bail. Annexures include an order dated 25-01-2024 in a prior bail application.
CRL.RC No. 611/2018 & Connected Cases These are batch criminal revision petitions instituted as suo motu proceedings under the Administrative Committee’s Resolution dated 18.09.17, challenging orders of acquittal in multiple cases before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollam. The Kerala High Court, presided by Justice P. Somarajan, heard the matters on 12 June 2024 in consolidated form with connected CRL.RC Nos. 612/2018 to 723/2018. The core legal issue concerns the Court’s power under Section 258 Cr.P.C., which allows a magistrate to stop proceedings in summons-c cases for reasons to be recorded and, in certain circumstances after evidence has been recorded, to acquit or discharge. The court cites a Division Bench decision in 2023 (2023 KHC OnLine 821) to illuminate the settled position that stoppage under Section 258 must be justified and supported by the prescribed grounds. The judgment emphasizes that the legal position has to be applied consistently to the suo motu revisions, and if the prerequisites are not met, interference is unwarranted. Ultimately, the High Court holds that the stoppage of proceedings is not warranted in these cases, and the revisions fail; they are closed, reinforcing the statutory framework of Section 258 Cr.P.C.”,
Ratheesh T.M., owner of 3.7403 acres in Chelannur Village, Kozhikode, purchased in February 2021 (Ext.P1). He sought a building permit (Ext.P8) which was granted, but objections arose because the property appeared as paddy land in revenue records. On 28.01.2022 he filed Form 6 (Ext.P9) to exclude the land from the Data Bank, while meanwhile the LLMC, through its Convenor/Agricultural Officer, decided on 01.02.2022 to include the petitioner’s property in the Data Bank, a decision not published and objected to by the petitioner (Ext.P10/Ext.P11). The petitioner later discovered that due to a wrong advisory, he filed Form 5 (Exhibit P12) assuming inclusion; the Revenue Divisional Officer’s counterfile reveals the Form 5 was rejected (Annexure R4(a)). The petitioner challenged Ext.P13, the LLMC’s certificate dated 07.02.2023 showing inclusion in the Data Bank. This Court noted the potential civil consequences of databank inclusion and emphasized that such action requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, citing natural justice and constitutional rights. Relying on Manoharan v. District Collector, Kannur, the Court quashed Ext.P13, directed that any future inclusion require prior notice and hearing, and ordered the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P9 after reports and within two months, while permitting the petitioner to pursue Ext.P9. The land remains un-notified pending proper procedure.
This writ petition challenges a debit freeze imposed by The Manager, Federal Bank on petitioner's account no. 21390200005023, based on a police requisition from the Director General of Police, Gujarat. The petitioner, Ameer Muhammad, maintains he is the holder of the account but is not named as an accused in any crime; he submits that the freeze—covering a disputed amount of Rs. 23,000—unreasonably restricts his ability to transact and is not properly calibrated to the police requisition. The bank’s advocate asserts the freeze is tied to the police requisition and the amount involved, and that the bank has acted within the scope of the authorities. The Court grounds its reasoning in 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 emphasize confining freezes to the amount specified and obtaining timely information from police about continuation. It also relies on interpretation of Section 102 Cr.P.C., now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Supreme Court’s rulings in Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad, and Shento Varghese to support a principled approach to account seizures. The High Court directs a phased, time-bound process and disposes of the petition accordingly, balancing due process with police and banking requirements.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1644 OF 2024 The Kerala High Court, in Bail Application No. 1644 of 2024, heard the bail plea of Johny Thomas, the first accused in Crime No. 643/2023 of Anchuthengu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The prosecution alleges offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 506(ii), and 392 read with 149; Arms Act, Section 27; Explosive Substances Act, Section 3(a); and the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Act, Sections 3 and 5. The crux of the prosecution case is that on 7 October 2023, during negotiations for sale of a motor vehicle, the first accused struck the de facto complainant with a sword, and, along with others, hurled a petrol bomb, damaged the car, and robbed the complainant’s mobile phone valued at Rs. 30,000; collectively, offences allegedly caused a loss of Rs. 2,50,000. Eight accused were arrested. The petitioner contends he was falsely implicated, is a cardiac patient, and that the investigation should not lead to detention; he is the owner of a fish transport company. The prosecution asserts the petitioner is a hardcore criminal involved in 16 prior cases; 11 of these have been closed, three concluded, and five pending. The court noted the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17.01.2024; the investigation is practically complete and recoveries have been made. After considering the material and principles of bail, the court granted bail subject to stringent conditions, including bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, regular appearance before the IO, prohibition on tampering with witnesses, surrender of passport, and restricted territorial jurisdiction; the decision relied on established bail jurisprudence and quoted Sushila Aggarwal, among others.
This writ petition challenges the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No. 10284100021532 by the 1st respondent bank, Federal Bank, in pursuance of a requisition from the 2nd respondent, the Cyber Crime Police, Pune. The petitioner, Najeeb, asserts that the debit freeze is arbitrary and that the account has, in parts, been made operational, restricting his ability to transact. The disputed amount mentioned in the police requisition is Rs. 13,166. The petition argues that freezing should not be perpetual and should be limited to the exact sum specified, so as to enable the petitioner to operate his funds and meet ordinary obligations. The 1st respondent bank contends that the freeze is a compliance with police directions and maintains the account has been made operational. In recognizing the tension between law enforcement and the rights of account holders, this 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) to direct that freezing be confined to the amount mentioned in the police order and that police inform the banks regarding any continuation for a specified period. The Court also cites Supreme Court precedents on Section 102 CrPC interpretation (State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy; Teesta Atul Setalvad; Shento Varghese) to stress timely reporting of seizures. The judgment directs the bank to lift any excess freeze, to continue only to the extent of the police order, and to follow the information from the police in a time-bound manner. The writ petition is disposed with these directions.
This Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No.1616 of 2025) concerns four accused who moved to quash proceedings arising from Crime No.681/2021 (now CC No.1687/2023) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur. The defacto complainant, Shifa Amna Mangadan, and the State opposed or supported? The court recorded the defacto complainant’s statement showing settlement between the parties, with the complainant and the first petitioner residing together with their daughter, and the complainant affirming no objection to quashing. An affidavit (Annexure-III) asserts the disputes are amicably settled, sworn voluntarily, without coercion. The court evaluated the historic jurisprudence on quashing non-compoundable offences under inherent powers (Section 482 Cr.P.C, now 528 BNSS 2023), noting seminal precedents B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and the earlier Karnataka v. Muniswamy decision. While 498A/406 IPC offences are typically non-compoundable, the court recognized that settlements can justify quashing when ends of justice are served, particularly where the parties have reconciled and continued proceedings would amount to abuse of process. The court found the settlement genuine and bonafide, observing that continued prosecution would be futile, and that the offence under Section 406 is compoundable, strengthening the quashing rationale. Consequently, the court allowed the Crl.M.C. and quashed the FIR, final report, and further proceedings in CC 1687/2023.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4108 OF 2025 This Bail Application (BAIL APPL. NO. 4108 OF 2025) before the Kerala High Court concerns Akhil Krishnan and two co-accused in Crime No.263/2025 of Edakkara Police Station, alleging offences under Sections 85, 316(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The petitioners, who are husband and family members of the defacto complainant, contend that the matrimonial relationship with the complainant remains intact and that denying bail would obstruct reconciliation, given the domestic context of the allegations and the likelihood of continued cohabitation. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, and the petitioners’ counsel addressed the court on the propriety of releasing the accused pending investigation. The court underscored the fundamental principle that personal liberty is a core constitutional value and that bail is the default presumption, with incarceration as the exception, citing leading authorities. It relied on Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, Manish Sisodia v. CBI, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), along with Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala, to sanction a balanced approach that protects both the accused’s liberty and the defacto complainant’s welfare. Consequently, the application was allowed with conditions: the petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks for interrogation; post-interrogation, if arrest is proposed, they shall be released on bail on bond of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties; they must cooperate with the investigation, not leave India without permission, and refrain from similar offences; compliance may lead to further recoveries, and violations may result in cancellation of bail.
CRL.A Nos. 2544/2009; 2545/2009; 2581/2009 The Kerala High Court delivers a common judgment arising from three criminal appeals (CRL.A. Nos. 2544/2009, 2545/2009, 2581/2009) challenging the 2009 judgment of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam. The core prosecution case involved accused Nos. 2–5 conspiring to cheat State Bank of India (SBI) by discounting nine discount-draft (DD) bills backed by forged lorry receipts and related documents in 1998, involving centrifugal latex consignments. Accused No.1 (the SBI branch manager) allegedly facilitated the discounting, while accused No.5 allegedly benefited as the proprietor of importing concerns. Investigations revealed forged consignee copies of lorry receipts with altered quantities and values, enabling the bank to disburse Rs.30,60,855/-. The prosecution relied on documents (Exts. P1–P41) and testimony of SBI officials (PWs 1–2, 9, 21, 29) and a handwriting expert (PW29). The trial court convicted accused Nos. 2–4 of conspiracy and related IPC sections; accused No.5 was acquitted. The High Court, in a common judgment, sustained the conviction of accused Nos. 2–4, set aside the conviction of accused No.5, and partially allowed the appeals (2581/2009) in favor of the accused. The judgment discusses the role of documentary evidence, handwriting expert opinion, and the scope of conspiracy, while addressing prior authorities on expert testimony.
Joy George K.K., the husband of Teresa Philip, filed this writ petition under WP(C) No. 38295 of 2023 challenging Ext.P4, which denied reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for his wife’s treatment. Teresa Philip, who died on 09.04.2019 while employed as a Health Skill Assistant in St. Cornelius Higher Secondary School, Kolayad (an aided school) in Kannur, was diagnosed with Appendicular Mass Ovarian Cancer in Aug. 2017. Due to lack of facilities at the local taluk hospital, the petitioner sought urgent treatment for Teresa and arranged care at Malabar Cancer Centre; however, surgery could not be performed immediately because of a lengthy waiting list. Consequently, she was admitted to MV.R Cancer and Research Institute in Calicut, where she underwent treatment under emergency conditions, including implantation of a CRT-D device. Teresa passed away on 09.04.2019. The petitioner submitted Exts.P2 and P3 seeking reimbursement, which were rejected by Ext.P4 on the ground that the hospital was not included in the empanelled list. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India, holding that the right to medical care cannot be denied merely because the hospital is not empanelled and that the real test is the factum of treatment supported by records. The court quashed Ext.P4, directed reconsideration of Exts.P2 and P3, and ordered reimbursement after due assessment of genuineness of the bills, with time-bound directions for payment after hearing suitable materials.
BAIL APPL. NOS. 4159/2025, 4046/2025, 4048/2025, 4095/2025, 4096/2025, 4101/2025, 4109/2025, 4142/2025 These Bail Applications arising from multiple connected cases concern Sreejith M R, accused in Crime Nos. 1359/2024, 1363/2024 (Ottapalam), 15/2025, 58/2025 (Thirunelly), 964/2024, 60/2025 (Meppadi), and 558/2024, 604/2024 (Kenichira) relating to alleged chitty-related offences. The High Court of Kerala, per P. V. Kunhikrishnan, disposes seven connected bail applications under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita by a common order. The petitioner contends that as an employee of Karatt Kuries India Pvt. Ltd., he is not involved in day-to-day company affairs, and requests bail given custody for about 70 days in another case with similar facts. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing the seriousness of the offences and potential interference with investigations and witnesses. The Court reiterates bail as the general rule and jail as the exception, citing Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of U.P., Joginder Kumar, and Manish Sisodia, emphasizing personal liberty and fair trial. It directs that the petitioner appear before the Investigating Officer within one month for interrogation, and, if arrest is proposed, to grant bail on a Rs. 50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, subject to strict conditions, including non-evading, non-disclosure, and cooperation with investigation. The order clarifies that a breach may lead to bail cancellation and that the prosecution and victims may move court if violated. The determination applies a principle from Anzar Azeez and Sushila Aggarwal to recoveries on bail where necessary.
This Kerala High Court bail petition, filed under Section 438 CrPC, concerns Lenin Raj. A.K., the second accused in Cantonment Police Station, Crime No. 1030/2023, Thiruvananthapuram. The prosecution alleges that an unknown person impersonated the defacto complainant—personal assistant to the Health Minister—and lured victims into employment schemes within the Health Department. The victim allegedly paid substantial sums; evidence indicates transfers of Rs.50,000 to the second accused’s account and Rs.25,000 to the first accused, who allegedly impersonated the defacto complainant to tarnish the Health Minister’s office. The first accused reportedly has ten other similar cases in Pathanamthitta and Kollam West; the second accused faces a pending case in Kakkoor Police Station. The investigation is in a nascent stage and custodial interrogation and recovery are asserted as necessary. The petitioner contends false implication, being a legal practitioner, with no concrete overt acts, and expresses willingness to comply with stringent conditions. The State opposes bail, citing conspiracy, grave financial crime, criminal antecedents, and risk of witness intimidation. Relying on established precedents on anticipatory bail in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and Sibbia, the court underscores the need for careful discretion and rejects rigid guidelines. After careful consideration, the court dismisses the pre-arrest bail application.
Bail Appl. No. 4036 of 2025 This is a bail application before the Kerala High Court concerning Muhammed Salih Marwan, the 7th accused in Crime No.121 of 2021 registered at Mattannur Police Station, Kannur, alleged to have committed offences under Section 395 IPC (robbery) during an incident on 13 February 2021. The petitioner was arrested on 2 November 2021 and was enlarged on bail by an order dated 23 November 2021 in Crl.M.C. No.1543 of 2021. The Investigating Officer later filed a petition for cancellation of bail on grounds that the petitioner was involved in a separate case (Crime No.13 of 2024, Kuthuparamba) also under Section 395 IPC; the bail was cancelled and the petitioner surrendered on 26 December 2024. The petitioner contends the case is false and that the matter has been settled with the victim; a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.1011 of 2024) seeking quashing of proceedings is pending, with the victim reportedly stating no grievance against the petitioner. The court references the longstanding principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing postulates from Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) and supportive observations in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024) and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) to emphasize the right to fair trial. On these facts, the High Court allows the bail petition with standard conditions: bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two solvent sureties, cooperation with investigation, prohibition on leaving India, and a clause enabling cancellation of bail for violations.
BAIL APPL. NO.5242 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, filed in the Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) in Bail Appl. No. 5242 of 2025, concerning Crime No. 107/2025 of Mattannur Police Station, Kannur. The four petitioners are accused in offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including sections 126(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(3) and 3(5). The prosecution alleges that on 04.02.2025 the petitioners, in furtherance of a common intention, restrained the defacto complainant, criminally intimidated him and caused grievous hurt with a GI pipe and a weapon called “Nanjakk” by a criminal act. The petitioners contend for bail, noting they are in custody since early and mid-March 2025 and are ready to comply with stringent conditions. Senior counsel for petitioners rely on established bail principles (bail as a rule, jail as an exception) and cite authoritative judgments by the Supreme Court and Kerala High Court, including 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 ultimately allows the bail petition, granting bail with specific conditions after considering the antecedents and the objects of bail law, emphasizing the presumption in favor of liberty and the right to a fair trial.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3947 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) filed before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam. Petitioners, accused Nos. 2 and 4 in Crime No. 22/2025 of Pattanakkadu Police Station, are challenging the order/judgment dated 11.03.2025 in CRMC No.254 of 2025 by the District & Sessions Court, Alappuzha, which presumably denied bail or imposed restrictive conditions. The alleged offences pertain to sections 126(2), 115(2), 296(b), 74, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS arising from a festival event at the Punnackal Parambu Bhajana Madom temple where a microphone was used during a “ganamela” program and a sequence of aggressive acts allegedly occurred, including kicking, beating, and assaulting a family member and others. The counsel for petitioners argued that the first accused was already granted bail and that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents and are ready to comply with conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but acknowledged lack of antecedents against petitioners. The court, after considering submissions and citing Supreme Court precedents, held that bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception, and granted bail to the petitioners under stringent conditions. The order emphasizes personal liberty, the discretion to grant bail with safeguards, and the power to cancel bail if conditions are violated.
W.P. (C) No. 11382 & 11385 of 2025 These writ petitions, filed by two retired KSRTC drivers, seek mandamus-like relief to ensure timely payment of monetary benefits and pensionary arrears arising from pay revisions and other emoluments due post-retirement. The petitioners, Rajan Choyikkandy and Janardhanan P., pray for sanction and disbursement of the consequential benefits as directed in the P6 order, arrears of salary after revising pay, and arrears of pension and pensionary benefits, along with a waiver of English translation requirements for vernacular documents. In the judgment delivered on 10 April 2025, the court records the respondent KSRTC’s stand that benefits would be disbursed in eight equal monthly installments within eight months. However, taking the Corporation’s position into account, the court disposes of the petitions by directing that arrears of salary, pension, and related benefits be paid within six months in six equal installments. The first installment is to be paid by 15 May 2025, with subsequent installments due on or before the 15th of each following month. The court’s order also references the Appendix exhibits (P1–P6) relating to pension passes, letters, medical certificates, and judgments in related matters, underscoring the need for expeditious compliance. The decision emphasizes timely relief for retired employees while acknowledging administrative constraints, ensuring prompt disbursement of arrears and pensionary benefits within a tightly defined timetable.
