The petition seeks a directions to lift the debit freeze imposed on the petitioner’s bank account bearing No. 6803801256 by the 4th respondent bank, which freeze was effected following a requisition from the 2nd respondent. The petitioner, holder of the frozen account, contends that the freezing is arbitrary and excessive in scope, depriving her of access to funds and business transactions. The dispute centers on the amount allegedly involved (Rs. 5,905) and whether the freeze should be confined strictly to the amount specified in the police requisition or extended beyond it. The petition relies on judgments such as Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024) and Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024) to argue that freezes should be limited to the amount specified and that police authorities must inform banks about the continuation of the freeze within a defined period, enabling banks to act accordingly. The court acknowledges the relevant provisions of law, notably Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), and cites Supreme Court authorities like State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen to uphold a protective framework for account holders when seizures are involved. The judgment, however, ultimately orders a measured approach consistent with the cited precedents, directing the bank to confine the freeze to the specified amount, require police information thereafter, and provide avenues for relief if information is not furnished in time.
Bail Appl. Nos. 4064, 4065, 4067 & 4068 of 2025 BIJU MANIKANDAN, aged 47, is the petitioner-accused before the Kerala High Court in four connected bail applications under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The petition concerns multiple crimes registered at Town West Police Station, Thrissur, including offences under IPC Sections 406 and 420 read with 34, and under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act) 3 r/w 21, 4 r/w 22 and 5 r/w 23. The cases have been transferred to the Crime Branch for investigation. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, a director of Heewan Nidhi Limited and Heewan Finance Limited, defrauded depositors by collecting money with assurances of repayment with interest and subsequently failed to repay. The petitioner has already spent about 180 days in custody, and the petitioner’s counsel notes prior bail orders in other cases; the Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing multiple cases with similar facts. The court invokes established bail jurisprudence—bail is the rule and jail the exception—and, relying on judgments like Chidambaram, Siddharth, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia and Sushila Aggarwal, grants the four bail petitions with stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation, safeguards for witnesses and victims, and potential cancellation of bail for violations.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4103 OF 2025 This Kerala High Court bail application concerns three petitioners—Aswin Ashok, Aswin Ranjeev @ Ambadi, and Abhijith P.A.—who are accused in Crime No. 105/2025, Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha, for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 126(2) and 3(5)). The prosecution contends the defacto complainant, his wife, and a friend were visiting the house of the 1st accused on 10 February 2025 at about 10:30 p.m. when the 7th accused and relatives assaulted them; Anil was injured after being cut with a knife; it is alleged that the accused incited one another. The petitioners submit that even if all allegations are accepted, no offence is made out against them; the 5th accused is already granted bail; there are no criminal antecedents. The court notes that the incident occurred at the 1st accused’s residence and that there are no antecedents, and concludes that bail can be granted with stringent conditions. Relying on Supreme Court and Kerala decisions, including Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of UP, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Anzar Azeez, and Sushila Aggarwal, the court imposes standard bail conditions: two weeks for IO interrogation; bond Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; access to cooperation and non-absconding; not leaving India; no new offences; and potential cancellation on violation. The order states this is a decision for bail and is applicable only to the bail application.
CRL.M.C. No. 2784 of 2025 AC Jailavudheen, the accused in CC No.25 of 2011 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur, challenges an order dated 14.03.2025 in CRLMP 348/2025, which denied his request under Section 243(2) CrPC to procure a handwriting expert report on Ext.P9 cash book entries for 01.09.2001 to 30.11.2001. The prosecution alleges misappropriation of Rs. 68,000 related to 200 bags of cattle feed supplied to a Milk Marketing Co-operative. The accused maintains that, save Ext.P9(a) (handover of charge), entries in Ext.P9 during the period are not his and requires a handwriting analysis to prove authorship. The Special Court had rejected the request on grounds that the report would be irrelevant to the charge. The petitioner contends that Section 243(2) permits summoning of evidence to prove his defence and that Section 136 of the Evidence Act permits the use of handwriting expert opinion. The court notes that the right to defend and adduce relevant evidence is fundamental to fair trial, citing Isaac Thomas v State of Kerala and Mohammed Ashraf v State of Kerala; it also cites Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar on limiting the scope of defence evidence to relevant facts and on efficiency of trial. The Kerala High Court ultimately holds that the handwriting report is irrelevant for the period in question and dismisses the Crl.M.C., though emphasising the accused's right to relevant evidence in general. The petition is dismissed.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.1310 of 2021) before the Kerala High Court, challenging prosecution arising from Crime No.266 of 2016 and CC No.136 of 2017. The petitioner, Ram Ballal, is the 2nd accused, employed as Area Manager-Operations for Blanket Hospitality Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (Vedanta Wake Up Resorts). He is charged under Sections 7 and 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 for alleged failure to register foreign visitors and submit Form C to the Registration Officer, during 2015-2016 at Vedanta Wake Up Resort, Devikulam. The petitioner contends that the duties of maintaining the visitor register and filing Form C fall on the ‘keeper of a hotel’ under Paragraph 16 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, a role which, as per his position, is confined to the person having direct management of the hotel. He argues that an Area Manager supervising multiple properties cannot be the keeper for purposes of the Act, and continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of process. Reliance is placed on Vijukumar and Others v. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KLT 684) to support the proposition that keeper‑level obligations attach to the premises’ keeper. The Public Prosecutor counters that the question of keeper is a matter for evidence and should not be prejudged. The High Court, after examining the statutory framework, holds that the keeper’s obligation lies with the person in direct control of the premises, and that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for negligence as keeper. Consequently, the Crl.M.C is allowed, quashing Annexure A2 (final report) and all further proceedings in CC No.136 of 2017. The order emphasizes that continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process.
This is a Kerala High Court regular bail application (B.A. No.1616/2024) filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.117/2023 of Kollengode Police Station, Palakkad, alleging offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for possession and transport of MDMA. The matter involves a prior bail denial in B.A. No.10198/2023, with the Court directing expeditious trial within six months, a period valid till 18.07.2024. The petition repeats the challenge of earlier applications, arguing no change in circumstances and lacking bonafides; the petitioners have been in custody since 13.02.2023 and contend the case is a fabrication, asserting their innocence and requesting release on bail. The prosecution contends this was a red-handed, joint transport of 88.880 grams of MDMA in a Maruthi Ignis car, with investigation concluded and the matter before the Special Court for NDPS charges, invoking Section 37 NDPS which imposes a strict rider on bail in commercial quantity cases. The court emphasizes the NDPS twin conditions: there must be reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and that he will not commit an offence while on bail, and that these grounds must be more than a prima facie case. Relying on Kesari and other authorities, the court concludes the rider cannot be diluted, notes the case diary and prosecution records support the charge’s prima facie elements, and dismisses the bail application, directing expeditious trial. The decision underscores the necessity of the stringent Section 37 criteria in NDPS matters and reaffirms the court’s authority to deny bail in commercial quantity cases while investigative progress is ongoing.
MACA Nos. 3806/2018 & 2327/2018 This judgment of the Kerala High Court arises from MACA Nos. 3806/2018 and 2327/2018, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha award in OPMV No.1149/2012 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Nimmy Varghese, a 15-year-old injured in a bus collision on 27.08.2012, claimed compensation of Rs.71,03,000. The Tribunal held the KSRTC bus driver negligent, awarding Rs.32,40,304 to the claimant. Nimmy (applicant in MACA 3806) challenged the quantum, while the insurer (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd) cross-appealed in MACA 2327/2018. The High Court undertook a cautious reassessment of evidence, including PW3 and Exts, and pronounced that the petitioner’s functional disability is 80% (after medicalBoard and court examination), and that the notional income for a 15-year-old in 2012 should be Rs.12,000 with 40% future prospects and a multiplier of 18 (Sarla Verma; Pranay Sethi). The court re-evaluated heads such as loss of education, pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, bystander expenses, future medical expenses, disfiguration, and marriage prospects. It held that the combined compensation should be Rs.82,21,898, directed deposit by the insurer within two months at 8% interest, and ordered disbursement to the petitioner. The judgment also references precedent on notional income, future prospects, and multiplier, including Ramachandrappa, Mekala, Kajal, and Pranay Sethi.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1547 OF 2024 This is a bail petition under Section 439 CrPC by Nadeer P in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) case (Crime No. 6/2024, Kannur Excise Range Office). The accused is charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) and 22(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985, with allegedly being found in conscious possession of 4.631 grams of methamphetamine and 4.931 grams of ganja near Kannur Municipal Corporation on 24 January 2024. Arrested in connection with the crime, he has remained in judicial custody since 24 January 2024. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection; the prosecution contends the accused has criminal antecedents (Crimes 19/2021, 23/2021, 57/2023) and that releasing him could lead to reoffending while the investigation is ongoing. Counsel for the petitioner argued the contraband is of intermediate quantity and that there is no real likelihood of flight given the already long custody; the investigation is near complete, and the recovery has been effected. The court, noting the intermediate quantity and the fact that Section 37 NDPS would not apply, allows bail. The order imposes a bond of Rs 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, and conditions including weekly appearance, no inducement, non-commission of offences, passport surrender, and the possibility of cancellation for violation; the court also cites Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) in support of ongoing investigations on bail.
MACA No. 2794 of 2016 & 804 of 2018 This High Court of Kerala judgment consolidates MACA No. 2794 of 2016 and MACA No. 804 of 2018 arising from a motor vehicle accident in which P.C. Joseph died in 2013, leaving dependants who filed O.P.(M.V.) No.328/2013 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Pala held the driver negligent and awarded Rs.22,13,172. The petitioners challenged the quantum, while the insurer contested the proceedings and later filed a review petition dismissed by the Tribunal. On appeal, the court re-evaluated income evidence, noting the deceased ran a timber business and owned lorries, with documentary evidence (Exts. A27–A28, A15–A17, etc.) indicating substantial earnings, though the deceased did not pay income tax. The court held that the deceased’s monthly income was at least Rs.40,000 (Rs.4,80,000 annually), with 2013–14 year tax and professional tax deductions resulting in Rs.37,392 per month. Applying Pranay Sethi for future prospects (10%), and Sarla Verma for the multiplier (9) and 1/3 deduction for personal living expenses, the loss of dependency computed to Rs.29,53,526. The tribunal’s awards on other heads were adjusted: loss of estate and funeral costs increased; love and affection was reduced, and a consolidated sum of Rs.31,23,726 was awarded. The insurer is directed to deposit this amount within two months with accrued interest at the Tribunal rate. MACA 804/2018 is dismissed; MACA 2794/2016 is allowed in part.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1656 OF 2024 Anwar Salih.K.P., first accused in Crime No.396/2023 of Pantheerankavu Police Station, Kozhikode, petitions under Section 439 CrPC for bail in relation to offences under Sections 22(c) r/w 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. He was arrested on 01.06.2023. Prosecution alleges that he and another accused were found in conscious possession of 53.29 grams of MDMA from a hotel room and from a car (KL 64 F 9600); the contraband quantity is described as commercial. The Investigating Officer filed a bail objection, noting the accused has a criminal antecedent in Crime No. 799/2021. The petitioner contends innocence and argues there is no incriminating material against him, that he has already spent about a year in custody, and that the investigation is effectively complete with the final report laid on 27.11.2023. The State counters that releasing him on bail would risk recurrence given the commercial quantity and past criminal involvement. Section 37 of the NDPS Act regulates bail in such cases, requiring the court to be satisfied on “reasonable grounds” that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. It cites Kesari for meaning of “reasonable grounds,” Nawaz Khan for the stringent test, and Sarkar for the general bail framework. After weighing gravity, quantity, and antecedents, the court finds no reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and denies bail, dismissing the petition.
The Kerala High Court, in BA No. 1641 of 2024, heard a pre-arrest bail application under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Akhil and Sasidharan C K in Crime No. 174/2024 of the Vadakkancherry Police Station, Palakkad, concerning six accused charged under IPC Ss 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 308 read with Sec. 149. The incident allegedly occurred on the night of 10 February 2024 when the accused formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons; the first accused allegedly uttered obscene words, broke a beer bottle and attempted to stab the injured person; the others allegedly assaulted with a plant pot, fists and a steel stool resulting in injuries including a forehead injury. The petitioners argued innocence, contended the 308 charge was wrongly incorporated to deny bail, noted that accused 2–5 have already been granted bail in BA Nos. 1719 and 1782 of 2024, and pointed to the accident/wound certificates suggesting no serious injuries and no need for custodial interrogation. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing an overt act by the first accused and medical records showing injury. After assessing the materials, the court held that the first petitioner had a specific overt act linking him to the alleged offence under Sec. 308; however, the second petitioner did not have such an overt act. The court dismissed the first bail petition but allowed the second on stringent conditions, including surrender within a week, bonds, co-operation, and restrictions, with a note that further recoveries may be effected on bail per a Supreme Court principle (Sushila Aggarwal).
BAIL APPL. NO. 1580 OF 2024 This is a bail application under section 438 CrPC filed by two accused in Crime No.12/2024 of the Anchal Excise Range Office, Kollam, arising from the seizure of illicit arrack and 110 litres of wash from an abandoned property at Cheruthannoor Desom, Edamon Village, on 6 February 2024. The prosecution contends the property belongs to the petitioners and the accused are involved in illicit liquor manufacture, with the 41A rigour of the Abkari Act applying, making custody and recovery actions necessary to safeguard the investigation. The petitioners contend their innocence, deny ownership of the property, and argue there is no material establishing their ownership or any need for custodial interrogation. They submit there is no recoverable material against them and that detention would hinder the investigation. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, asserting incriminating materials and the rigour of 41A, which requires opposing the application unless the court is satisfied of the accused’s non-guilt and non-return to crime while on bail. The court relies on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing discretion and case-specific evaluation, notably Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and Sibbia, to reject rigid guidelines. It ultimately refuses pre-arrest bail but grants a conditional path: surrender within 10 days for interrogation and production, with merits-based bail consideration to follow at the jurisdictional court."
BAIL APPL. NO. 1598 OF 2024 This is a bail application under section 438 CrPC filed by Anilkumar A, the sole accused in Crime No.16/2024 of Chirayinkeezhu Excise Range, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging commission of an offence under section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioner is represented by multiple advocates, whereas the State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposes release on pre-arrest bail. The prosecution contends that 4 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) was recovered, and the petitioner fled on seeing the excise party, thus indicating conscious possession of contraband and necessitating custodial interrogation. The petitioner contends innocence, asserts false implication, and argues liquor belonged to his employees; he runs a chicken stall and there is no recovery from him. The Court discusses the applicability of section 41A Abkari Act and the stringent bail regime under Abkari offences, and cites Supreme Court jurisprudence on anticipatory bail. Based on the materials, the Court evaluates whether reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused is not guilty and whether he is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail, ultimately concluding that the facts do not justify extraordinary relief. The application is dismissed, directing that custodial interrogation and investigation proceed unhindered.
The petitioner, Sainudheen Muhammed, filed WP(C) No.6148 of 2025 seeking to lift the debit freeze on his bank account No. 18894100012398 held with Federal Bank, Vadakkekkad Branch, which the bank froze following a police requisition. The petitioner contends that the freeze is illegal and arbitrary, arguing that the action extends beyond the parameters of the police requisition, especially since the bank allegedly marked a lien for Rs. 1,00,000. The respondents include NCCRP, the Union of India (MHA), Federal Bank, and the Central Region Cyber Police Station. During hearings, the bank’s counsel admitted a lien of Rs. 1,00,000; the court relies on prior Kerala High Court authority, notably Dr. Sajeer v. RBI (2024 (1) KLT 826), and subsequent decisions (Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd; and Section 102 of Cr.P.C as interpreted in related cases) to craft a principled remedy. The court directs that freezes must be confined to the amount specified in the police order, with banks instructed to enable the petitioner to transact beyond that limit, and police to inform whether the freeze must continue, for how long, with a time-bound framework. It also enjoins banks and petitioners to inform the police and serve copies of the judgment, and anchors its directions in the updated Cr.P.C. framework (Section 106 BNSS 2023). The petition is disposed of with these directions.
This is a Kerala High Court bail application (B.A.No.2425 of 2025) arising from Crime No.150/2025 of Aruvikkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioners are accused Nos. 13 and 15 in a case alleging offences under Sections 409 and 420 read with 34 IPC, relating to alleged misappropriation of Rs. 24.74 crore during 01.04.2021–31.05.2024 at Rajiv Gandhi Residence Welfare Co‑operative Society, Nedumangad Taluk. The petitioners sought relief under Section 482 CrPC (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). The court recalls an earlier order directing the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer (IO) on a date and states the IO could interrogate them and report whether custodial interrogation was necessary; it also directed that they not be arrested until the next posting date. The prosecution contends that the petitioners did not cooperate, whereas the case can be proved by oral and documentary evidence. Relying on Supreme Court bail jurisprudence, including Chidambaram P v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Joginder Kumar, and Manish Sisodia, the court emphasizes that bail is the rule and detention is the exception, and that arrest should be justified and not routine. The court ultimately allows the bail with stringent conditions: appearance before IO within two weeks, bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, cooperation with investigation, no leaving the country, no committing similar offences, and that the observations are limited to bail. The principle in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala is applied. The order is issued by Judge P.V. Kunhikrishnan.
This is a bail petition filed by Sonu Stanely under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in respect of Crime No.74/2025 of Mulavukadu Police Station, Ernakulam, for alleged possession of 3.01 grams of MDMA under NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 22(b)). The petitioner has been in custody since 10.02.2025. The prosecution contends the offence is serious, but reports no criminal antecedents against the accused. The petitioner’s counsel submits readiness to comply with any conditional orders and emphasizes that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, arguing that the period of detention and the relatively small quantity (intermediate) should not bar release on bail. The Public Prosecutor acknowledges gravity but suggests that the absence of antecedents supports a bail grant under appropriate conditions. The court notes that the contraband constitutes an intermediate quantity, which should ordinarily negate the strict rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and with the detention period considered, grants bail with stringent conditions. Citing 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 reiterates the bail principle and applies it to this case. The order imposes conditions including bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, no travel abroad without permission, no commission of similar offences, and that observations are limited to bail, with bail cancellable on breach.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3969 OF 2025 Darvin Joseph and Sujo Kennedy, accused in Pallithottam Police Station Crime No. 262/2025, approached the Kerala High Court seeking relief under Section 482 CrPC (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The prosecution originally invoked offences under Sections 121(1), 126(2), and 296(b) BNS, but the 121(1) charge was deleted after it emerged the complainant was not in uniform, and Section 118(1) was added. The defacto complainant, a Civil Excise Officer, alleged that on 03.03.2025 at 12:30 am the petitioners restrained and assaulted him while discharging official duties. After hearing counsel for both sides, the Court examined whether arrest was necessary under Arnesh Kumar and other authorities, noting that the maximum sentence for 118(1) is up to three years and that arrest must be justified by necessity for prevention of future offences, proper investigation, protection of witnesses, or preventing evidence tampering. The judge emphasized the principle that bail is the norm and that a routine arrest should be avoided, particularly in non-violent or low-sentencing offences. Accordingly, the court granted bail with stringent conditions: the petitioners must appear before the IO within two weeks for interrogation; if arrest is contemplated, they shall be released on bail with a Rs.50,000 bond and two sureties; they shall not leave India, shall cooperate with the investigation, and shall refrain from tampering with witnesses. The order cites Anzar Azeez and other authorities to guide its approach and reserves the jurisdiction to cancel bail if conditions are violated.
BAIL APPL. NO.1495 OF 2025 & connected cases This is a set of connected bail applications filed by Binilkumar challenging orders in Crime Nos. 2062/2023, 1920/2023 and 24/2024 of Perumbavoor Police Station, and Crime No. 544/2024 of Thodupuzha Police Station, under Section 483 BNSS. The petitioner, aged 40, has been in custody since 25.01.2025, and contends that although the alleged offences are serious (inter alia under Sections 406 and 420 IPC), indefinite detention is unwarranted and bail with stringent conditions should suffice to ensure fair trial. The prosecution counters that there are eight other cases with the same set of allegations, amplifying concerns about flight risk and interference with investigations. The High Court, however, reiterates the long-standing bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and examines the case in light of this principle. Citing Supreme Court dicta in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court emphasizes that bail should not be denied where a case justifies it, even in serious offences. Consequently, the court grants bail under stringent conditions: a Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, non-leave from India without court permission, abstaining from further offences, and a right to cancel bail on violation. The order reflects cautious optimism about fair trial while safeguarding legitimate investigative interests.
This Kerala High Court criminal appeal arises from a bail denial in SC No. 2/2023/NIA before the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, involving accused Nos. 62 and 63 (SHEFEEK and JAFAR B) along with other co-accused in a PFI-related conspiracy case. The prosecution alleges offences under IPC (including 120B, 34, 302, 449, among others), as well as sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, and the Arms Act, 1959, with related NIA Act proceedings. The core issue on appeal is whether the arrest grounds were communicated to the accused in writing, a matter tied to Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC. The appellants contend that no written grounds were supplied, rendering the arrest and remand illegal, citing Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, and Vihaan Kumar. The respondents contend that grounds were explained; the arrest memo shows written communication and serves as defense. The High Court, after examining the arrest memos and the jurisprudence on grounds of arrest versus reasons, concludes that the grounds of arrest must be provided in writing; non-compliance vitiates arrest/remand but does not nullify the investigation. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order set aside, and bail granted to the appellants with specific conditions (e.g., travel restrictions, passport surrender, address updates, single mobile number, fortnightly reporting, no witness tampering).
BAIL APPL. NO. 3909 OF 2025 In Bail Application No. 3909 of 2025, the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, hears Sahir Babu, aged 18, accused in Crime No. 138/2025 of Ollur Police Station, Thrissur, charged under sections 64(2)(m) and 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, sections 4(1), 3(a), 6(1), 5j(ii) & 5I of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), and section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner seeks bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, contending detention since 24 January 2025 is excessive and he is ready to comply with stringent conditions. The prosecution opposed bail; the victim’s counsel states the victim has no objection to bail and mentions a pre-marital arrangement that they will marry upon majority. The court surveys the established bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Supreme Court decisions in Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019 SCALE 870) and Jalaluddin Khan v Union of India (2024 KHC 6431), as well as Manish Sisodia v Directorate of Enforcement (2024 KHC 6426). It also notes the Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260) principle. After considering the facts, the court grants bail with stringent conditions, including a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the Investigating Officer, travel restrictions, and a caution that observations apply only to this bail petition; non-compliance may lead to cancellation.
