Saji Ithappiri, the appellant, challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor’s award in O.P.(M.V.) No.301/2007 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising from a 13 November 2006 accident involving a motorcycle hit by a Maruti Omni Van insured by The New Insurance Co. Ltd. The Tribunal held the driver negligent and awarded Rs. 2,52,790 in total compensation. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in not fixing the notional income at Rs. 5500 per month (2006) in line with Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., and that several heads of compensation needed enhancement. The insurer disputed the negligence finding but accepted the policy; they argued the Tribunal’s income assessment was reasonable, though Ramachandrappa’s principle supports Rs. 5500 as a notional income for a coolie in 2006. The High Court noted the claimant had no disability certificate and thus no disability compensation. Applying Ramachandrappa (supra), the notional income is re-fixed at Rs. 5500, raising loss of earnings to Rs. 33,000 (5500 x 6 months). It also augmented pain and suffering to Rs. 50,000, disfiguration to Rs. 25,000, loss of amenities to Rs. 30,000, bystander expenses to Rs. 4,000, and extra nourishment to Rs. 5,000. The total thus becomes Rs. 3,08,590. The appeal is allowed in part; the insurer must deposit this amount with interest within two months, and the Tribunal is to disburse the funds thereafter.
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5154 OF 2025 This Bail Application, B.A. No. 5154 of 2025, came up before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam seeking bail for the sole accused Jayadevakrishnan in Crime No. 164/2025 of Varandarappilly Police Station, Thrissur, under sections 126(2), 296(b), 351(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleges that on 28.02.2025, at Veluppadam Kinar junction, in furtherance of a common intention and armed with a sword, the first accused hurled obscene words, threatened to kill, and stabbed the complainant, causing grievous injuries. The petitioner, in custody since 08.03.2025, urged that indefinite detention is unnecessary and that he would adhere to conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed; arguing the offences are serious and the accused has criminal antecedents. The court acknowledged the gravity of the charges but emphasized the well-established principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Supreme Court decisions. After weighing the facts and the jurisdictional factors, the judge granted bail with several conditions, including a Rs.1,00,000 bond with two sureties, appearance before the IO, restrictions on leaving India, non-commission of similar offences, and a one-month prohibition on entering the Varantharappilly jurisdiction. The order cites Anzar Azeez's principle and permits cancellation of bail for violation.
Cont.Case (C)No.494 of 2020 Contempt Case (C) 494 of 2020 is filed by a large group of petitioners (the contemnors) challenging alleged willful disobedience by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) of directions from the Kerala High Court's 12 October 2018 judgment in WP(C) No. 39275/2016 and connected matters. The petition arises in the wake of the EPFO’s implementation of pension scheme amendments under the 2014 notification (G.S.R. 609(E)) and related provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, amid later Supreme Court scrutiny. The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Sunil Kumar B. (AIR 2022 SC 5634) upheld the legality of the notification and laid down directions on applying the amended scheme, including considerations for those who did not exercise option before 1 September 2014 and the temporary adjustment of contributions. The Kerala High Court noted that, following the 2022 judgment, petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by the EPFO. Accordingly, the court closed the contempt petition, while reserving EPFO’s right to re-evaluate petitioners’ entitlements in light of the 2022 Apex Court decision. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Anil K. Narendran, J. and Sophy Thomas, J.
Yadu D. Narayanan filed a public interest writ petition seeking systemic reform in policing against crimes on women. He alleged increasing atrocities on women and police insensitivity, citing the suicide of Moufiya Parveen after a reportedly rude response to a domestic-violence complaint and a purported nexus between police, judiciary and religious groups in a separate high-profile case (FIR 143/2021, Aloor PS). The petitioner urged (i) a state-level specialized division within the police headed by an Additional Director General of Police to monitor investigations into crimes against women; (ii) district-level panels of qualified women counsellors, lawyers and doctors led by a senior police officer to monitor such crimes; (iii) separate women-police desks at all stations to receive victims’ complaints; (iv) a vigilance enquiry into the role of police officials in aiding and abetting the accused in the Aloor case; (v) a Special Investigation Team to prosecute the crime including uncovering conspirators; and (vi) periodic reports to the Court. The State countered with existing mechanisms – Crime Branch, Vanitha Cells, Women Help Desks and OSCs – and argued that some reliefs are policy decisions. The Court found some prayers impracticable or duplicative, noted ongoing Crime Branch work, permitted the petitioner to furnish materials to aid investigation, and disposed of the petition with directions not to set a precedent.
The petitioner, Sarath Chandran K.T., challenges a debit freeze imposed on his State Bank of India account no. 67209613210, which was frozen by the bank under a police requisition from the Economic and Narcotics Crime Police in Tumkur, Karnataka. The amount reportedly frozen is Rs. 2,01,159, and the petitioner contends that the blanket or total freeze is arbitrary and violates due process, since his livelihood and ability to conduct ordinary transactions hinge on access to his funds. The respondents contend that the freezing is a police-ordered precaution to preserve proceeds of crime during ongoing investigations and that the bank acted in accordance with the requisition. The court situates the matter within a line of jurisprudence beginning with Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India and Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd., highlighting interpretive guidance on Section 102 CrPC (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and the broader principles articulated in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen. In these decisions, the freeze is to be confined to the notified amount, and authorities must report to the jurisdictional Magistrate and communicate with the bank regarding continuation of the freeze. The court directs the bank to restrict the freeze to the specified amount, directs police to inform the bank about continuing the freeze and its duration, and orders service of this judgment to the relevant authorities. It also provides that, if no timely intimation is received, the petitioner may approach the court again. The writ petition is disposed of with directions to ensure timely compliance and possible lifting of the debit freeze under the stated conditions.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.MC No.1590 of 2023) disposed by the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, on 20 March 2023, by single-judge bench of Justice K. Babu. The petition seeks to quash Annexure-A1 Final Report in Crime No.286 of 2003 of Varappuzha Police Station and all further proceedings in CC No.205 of 2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, North Paravur, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the entire subject matter. Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 10 are the petitioners. The offences alleged span sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 341, 323, 324, 326 read with 149 IPC. Respondents 3 to 5 appeared through counsel; affidavits were filed. The Public Prosecutor stated that victims were examined and the dispute is settled, voluntary, fair, and not against the conscience of the court; the defacto complainant has decided not to proceed. The court cites Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Others, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lakshmi Narayan and Others to explain that underSection 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court can quash proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offences where parties settle, to serve ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. It notes the dispute is personal, not public-interest affecting, and the offences do not fall under a category barred from compromise. Consequently, the court allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes Annexure-A1 and CC No.205/2015 proceedings. The order is by K. Babu, J., Single Judge.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 3213 of 2015) arose before the Kerala High Court from an award of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claimant, C. Ammaiappan, suffered severe injuries in a road accident on 18 December 2012 when a motorcyclist was struck by a car insured by the New India Assurance Company. The Tribunal held the driver negligent and awarded Rs. 90,31,826 as total compensation, directing the insurer to pay. On appeal, the insurer contended the Tribunal erred in (i) fixing the claimant’s functional disability at 95% (medical board had assessed 80%), (ii) using a notional monthly income of Rs. 40,000, and (iii) adding 30% towards future prospects. The claimant contended that his actual income from cloth merchandising and tailoring was far higher and that future prospects should be recognized at 25%, with a multiplier of 13 as per established law. The High Court re-evaluated, upheld 95% functional disability, and accepted the higher income and the 25% future prospects with multiplier 13. It enhanced several heads of compensation, bringing the total to Rs. 92,55,426, and dismissed the appeal. The insurer was directed to deposit this amount within two months with 8% interest on the enhanced compensation, for disbursement by the Tribunal on deposit.
Smrithy George, the first accused in CC 1806/2015 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Kalamassery, challenges Annexure-A6 order permitting the production of documents not seized during investigation, invoked in connection with charges under IPC sections 408, 418, 427, 464, 477A and 120B read with 34. The complainant Sai Service Pvt. Ltd. had filed a private complaint, forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC, culminating in a final report after investigation. The prosecution alleges a criminal conspiracy between the petitioner and others to manipulate records to garner incentives at Maruti True Value between 2013 and 2014. The documents proposed for production include incentive sheets, appointment letters, employment certificates, and delivery registers. The defense contends these records were not produced during investigation and are concocted pieces of evidence introduced belatedly to prejudice the accused; reliance is placed on Anand Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh and Sharadbhai Jivanlal Vaniya v State of Gujarat. The prosecution argues that various CrPC provisions empower the court to admit materials outside the final report and that sections 242(2), 294, 311 and 173(5) permit such production, with 173(8) enabling further investigation. The High Court scrutinizes these authorities, noting that the documents were not seized and were not part of the police report. It holds the order illegal, sets aside Annexure-A6, and permits the Investigating Officer to pursue 173(8) for further investigation if warranted. The petition is allowed.
O.P.(FC) Nos.553 & 560 of 2022 These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenge a Family Court order in Thrissur that directed the petitioner mother to hand over custody of her minor twins, Ananya and Adithya (aged 3), to the father. The High Court, after hearing both parents and interacting with the children, emphasizes that the twins should live together to avoid emotional distress and to maintain sisterly affiliation. The matter traces to a dissolution of marriage in which custody was entrusted to the father; the mother later remarried and sought custody during the pendency of GOP No. 2242 of 2021. Interlocutory applications sought interim custody; the Family Court directed that Ananya be handed to the father at 10 am on 06.09.2022. The court relies on Supreme Court precedents including Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020), Vasudha Sethi v. Kiran Bhaskar (AIR 2022 SC 476), Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka (SCC Online 937), and Nithya Anand Raghawan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) to affirm that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration and that contact with both parents should be preserved wherever possible. In a practical arrangement, the court declines to remand the matter to the Family Court for further delay, and instead orders a structured custody schedule while GOP 2242/2021 is pending: the mother retains custody of both children until disposal of GOP 2242/2021 and the father receives them on weekends with supervised transfer in the presence of a Family Court official.
WP(C) Nos. 21963 of 2020 & 18419 of 2021 This writ petition challenges the exclusion of two B.Sc courses—Medical Biochemistry and Medical Microbiology—from the 2018-19 prospectus for admission to professional degree and para-medical streams in Kerala. The petitioners, Akhil James and Abhijith H, were students enrolled in these courses in 2018, and until then the courses had been listed in prospectuses since 2015-16. By GO MS No.75/2018/H&FWD dated 18 May 2018, the Government approved a prospectus that omitted the two courses, with the Director of Medical Education explaining four reasons: (a) the courses are not conducted in Government Medical Colleges; (b) there are no posts in the Medical Education Department for the two courses; (c) the Centre for Health Science at the University of Calicut is not affiliated to KUHS; and (d) other private institutes offer those courses. The petitioners contended these grounds were factually incorrect or untenable; they argued that many listed courses are not offered in government colleges, that there are academic and employment opportunities for graduates of these courses, and that post-graduate and teaching posts would permit them to work in the sector; the issue raises questions about the policy decision making rather than violation of fundamental rights. The Government asserted that exclusion was a policy decision not subject to interference. After reviewing the objections, the court held the matter non-interferable: mere errors in policy do not warrant judicial review, and since the petitioners had joined the courses, they cannot challenge the prospectus. The petitions were dismissed.
WA Nos.1024/2022 & 486/2023 These intra-court appeals arise from a dispute over variation of timing on stage-carriage permits on routes in Malappuram district. The third respondent Haskar sought variation of his permit to curtail two trips; the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) initially rejected the variation (Ext.P3). The State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) set aside Ext.P3 and directed reconsideration, and this Court’s earlier order in WP(C) No.10012/2021 directed the RTA to pass orders on the variation petition. The writ petitioner Ibrahim challenged the impugned judgment dated 15 July 2022, which set aside Ext.P7 (the timing settlement) and remitted the matter for reconsideration, while the third respondent pursued WA 1024/2022 challenging that judgment. The parties’ arguments center on whether the variation of timings can be challenged as distinct from the grant of permit, and whether the timing conference held on 17.06.2022 was properly notified. It is argued that the petitioner's predecessor in interest had not been made a party to Ext.P7 proceedings and that the right under the proviso to Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is confined to timing variation, not the grant of the permit itself. The Court ultimately directs reconsideration of timings and clarifies that a remedy lies in appeal to the STAT, while maintaining status quo until a fresh decision is taken by the RTA.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5105 OF 2025 Jithinlal, the accused in Crime No. 414/2025 of Pudukkad Police Station, Thrissur, approaches the Kerala High Court for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The offences alleged are sections 126(2), 118(1), 110 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha. The prosecution alleges that the defacto complainant failed to repay money borrowed on interest; on 23.03.2025, around 10:15 pm, the accused allegedly restrained the complainant on the road in front of the complainant’s aunt’s house and threatened to kill him if repayment was not made. The accused allegedly hit the complainant on the left knee with an iron rod and brandished it toward the complainant’s head, creating a risk of a fatal injury had the head been struck; the complainant sustained shoulder injuries. The petitioner contends there was a monetary dispute and that he is ready to comply with stringent conditions; he has been in custody since 25.03.2025. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing criminal antecedents and nine other cases (with seven disposed and two pending). The court relies on established bail jurisprudence (bail is the rule; jail is the exception) and considers Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426], along with Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala, to grant bail with stringent conditions. The order allows release on bond Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO on Mondays until final report, prohibition from leaving India, no committal of another offence, and weekly IO appearances. It preserves the power to cancel bail for violations. Neutral citation relied upon is 2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No.7234/2019) heard by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court (Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.) on 9 February 2022. Petitioners S. Lalitha and M. Somanathan seek release of gold ornaments seized in connection with Crime No.1730 of 2012 (Thampanoor Police) and produced before the court, which were entrusted to the 1st respondent bank under an earlier order (CMP No.758/2013) under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The bank was to retain custody of the ornaments in a sealed bundle, to be produced as required by the court, and to ensure proper bond security. The petition had previously been rejected via Annexure-A9, and the petitioners had moved this Court after a W.P.(C) (7599/2017) judgment directed them to approach the Magistrate under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The core issues involve ownership (which the petitioners do not dispute), the bank’s refusal to release due to unidentified ornaments within a sealed 1022 g bundle, and the need for an identification process that avoids rival claims and preserves the court’s seals. Relying on guidelines from Suresh Serve v. State of Kerala and Sundarlal Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the court remands for a structured identification exercise, appointing an Advocate Commissioner to break seals, identify the ornaments in the presence of relevant parties, obtain owner details, and consider release on terms when liabilities are cleared. The order emphasizes expeditious resolution consistent with established legal principles for release of seized property.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4970 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed by Muhammed Sharin, the second accused in Crime No. 874/2023 of Chalissery Police Station, Palakkad, challenging the order in Bail Appl. No. 776 of 2024. The accused faces offences under Sections 22(c) and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for allegedly possessing 63.66 grams of MDMA stamps and 19.1 grams of ganja on 11.10.2023, with arrest on 15.10.2023. The petitioner’s counsel contends that prolonged pre-trial incarceration and delays may dilute the rigour of NDPS Act Section 37(1)(b) and that Article 21 of the Constitution protects personal liberty, justifying bail in appropriate circumstances. They rely on recent Supreme Court decisions—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)—to argue that incarceration lasting beyond a year or more may warrant bail even in commercial NDPS cases. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, emphasizing the gravity of the offences and the NDA’s statutory embargo. The court notes prosecution delays and absence of several panch witnesses, and that the prosecution sought to summon additional witnesses under Cr.P.C. 311 without adequate justification. Ultimately, the court disposes the application with directions that the petitioner may file a fresh bail petition within two weeks, to be decided in light of the cited precedents; no bail is granted at this stage.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.MC No. 4023 of 2023) filed in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam challenging the proceedings in Crime No. 2057 of 2019 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, now pending as CC No. 5/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners (thirteen accused) contended that the disputes with the defacto complainant and other victims had been amicably settled; on that basis they sought quashment of the entire criminal action under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that continuing the proceedings would be futile and an abuse of process given the settlement. The court recorded the defacto complainant and victims’ statements indicating that there were no grievances against the petitioners and no objection to quashing, supported by affidavits by the parties. The court examined the matter in light of established precedents—Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab—holding that a genuine, voluntary settlement can justify termination of criminal proceedings even for non-compoundable offences under 482 CrPC, subject to safeguards. The court found that the settlement was genuine and bonafide and that continuation would amount to abuse of process, especially since offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC are compoundable. Consequently, the court allowed the Crl.MC and quashed Annexure-A FIR, the Final Report, and all proceedings in CC 5/2020."The bench relies on settled law that a genuine settlement can collapse proceedings where the ends of justice are served, while noting the procedural safeguards and the compoundability of certain offences.
This public interest litigation filed by residents of Wayanad district concerns recurring landslides and landslips during the monsoons, allegedly caused by unregulated earthmoving activities. The petition seeks mandamus to enforce Ext.P3 draft guidelines on operating earthmovers, and to direct authorities to take action against violators once these guidelines are implemented. The petitioner points to Ext.P4, a 21 August 2019 circular by the Director of Mining and Geology, arguing that soil-excavation activities must be regulated, especially in landslide-prone areas. After hearing, the court notes that Ext.P3 comprises draft guidelines and that the actual approach appears to be guided by earlier orders. The record includes Ext.R1(a), the DDMA’s August 2016 guidelines for earthmovers, JCBs and quarrying regulation; Ext.R1(b)-(d) relate to further DDMA actions restricting quarrying, building heights, and soil operations in landslide zones. The counter-affidavit explains that the DDMA has been proactive in issuing orders to regulate earthmoving, quarrying, and construction, with data on landslides in 2018-2019 and rainfall tables. The court reviews these materials, including the DDMA’s Disaster Management Plan and statutory provisions, and concludes that the DDMA has already taken substantial preventive measures, including containment orders and registration requirements. Accordingly, the court disposes of the petition without issuing new directions.
These bail proceedings arise in B.A. No. 4991 of 2025 before the Kerala High Court challenging the order in CRMC No. 334 of 2025 of the District & Sessions Court, Alappuzha, in Crime No. 1413/2024 of Punnapra Police Station. The petitioners, Akhil Simon and Ajo Antony, stand accused along with a third person of offences under sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The prosecution case alleges that on 29 December 2024, at about 9:30 pm, the accused obstructed the defacto complainant’s residence while in the company of others; the first petitioner allegedly hurled abusive words and assaulted him with an iron rod, and the second accused allegedly beat the complainant on the head with a helmet. The petition seeks bail under Section 482 of the BNS, contending that it is a case and counter case with two versions, making factual resolution at bail stage inappropriate. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing alleged antecedents. The Court notes both sides’ submissions and, acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations but treating it as a case and counter case, allows bail with stringent conditions. It cites established bail principles from Supreme Court decisions, including Chidambaram, Siddharth, Manish Sisodia, Joginder Kumar, Sushila Aggarwal and Anzar Azeez, to justify granting bail while ensuring cooperation with investigation and preventing influence or flight. The order emphasizes that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, subject to conditions such as reporting to the IO, bonds and sureties, appearance obligations, and non-commission of similar offences.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from an award dated 31 January 2009 in O.P.(M.V.) No. 2207/2005 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, challenging lis filed by legal heirs of the deceased Santhosh under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The deceased, a pedestrian, was killed when a lorry (KL7/AH 3952) struck him on 12 August 2005. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,04,500 with a multiplier of 5. The appellants contended that the multiplier should be 17, following the mature legal doctrine that multiplier is tied to the age of the deceased, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Munna Lal Jain, Reshma Kumari and Sarla Verma, among others. They also urged a higher monthly income for the deceased, citing Ramachandrappa to justify Rs.3,000 per month (instead of Rs.2,500 determined by the Tribunal) and argued for an income level that would yield greater dependency losses. The High Court agrees that multiplier must be based on the age of the deceased and, relying on the cited judgments, holds that the period of active career supports a 17-year multiplier for an age group 26–30. Accordingly, the court fixes Rs.3,000 as monthly income and recalculates the loss of dependency to Rs.4,08,000, with Rs.2,000 for funeral expenses and Rs.2,500 for loss of estate, totaling Rs.4,12,500, plus 8% interest from the date of application. The appeal is allowed, and the respondents are directed to pay the enhanced amount.
WP(C).No.16516 OF 2020(L) This writ petition (WP(C). No.16516 of 2020) concerns the administration of the Pullipadath Juma Ath Palli Wakf and its rubber plantation assets. The petitioner, V.P. Kunhahammed Kutty, asserts that he was appointed Muthawalli (trust administrator) of the Wakf with the Kerala State Wakf Board’s approval (Ext. P1) and has been managing the Wakf properties since 27 July 2017. He alleges interference and threats by the respondents (1–3, police authorities) and their supporters and seeks police protection to continue tapping rubber trees and to safeguard workers and management. The petitioner also notes pending civil proceedings before the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode, including O.S. Nos. 2, 5/2019 (renumbered as O.S. 31/2019 and 81/2019), and an OA (No. 62/2019) challenging Ext. P1, illustrating a factional dispute over Wakf control. The respondents counter that the petitioner is not the Muthawalli; the Wakf is administered by a committee; Exts. P1–P2 were allegedly obtained fraudulently; there is ongoing Wakf Tribunal litigation, and there has been no proven state action to obstruct tapping. The court declined to issue police protection, citing settled principles that writs should not adjudicate civil rights pending civil actions and that Article 226 relief is not a substitute for civil remedies. The petition was dismissed, directing the parties to pursue civil remedies while ordering the police to maintain peace.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5293 OF 2025 This is a bail application under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, filed by Sindhu V. Nair, accused in Crime No. 889/2024 of CBCID Kollam, alleging offences under Sections 409, 420, 120B r/w 34 IPC and under Sections 3 r/w 21 & 5 r/w 23 of the BUDS Act. The prosecution contends that the petitioner, former Managing Director of the erstwhile PRDS Nidhi Ltd. (renamed as G & G Financiers), induced the complainant to deposit Rs. 75,000 on two occasions with a high interest and failed to return the amount. Arrested on 07.02.2025, she seeks bail contending that continuous custody is unwarranted. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the alleged offenses. The learned Judge, while acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, emphasized that indefinite incarceration is not necessary and that bail is the rule and jail the exception. Relying on Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and subsequent judgments, the court held that bail should be granted if conditions in statute permit. The court also cited Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement to reinforce the principle that bail is a settled rule. It granted bail subject to stringent conditions including bond, two sureties, cooperation with investigation, non-departure from India, and prohibition on similar offenses. The decision cites Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala as applicable. The order states the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, with safeguards if conditions are violated. The application is allowed with conditions. Date: 11 April 2025.
