CRL.MC NO.2088 OF 2025 (connected with CRL.MC Nos. 2074/2025, 2075/2025, 2085/2025) This is a consolidated criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, decided by a Single Judge ( Justice V. G. Arun ) on 11 March 2025. The petitions (CRL.MC Nos. 2088/2025, 2074/2025, 2075/2025, 2085/2025) arise out of Crime No. 1049/2024 registered at Vanchiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The 4th respondent Bank of Maharashtra had directed a freeze of gold ornaments pledged by the petitioners to secure a gold loan, in the wake of allegations that the accused had converted ornaments into gold ingots and failed to remit payment; the de facto complainant reportedly sought to retain the ornaments. The petitioners contended the ornaments were pledged prior to the alleged incident (dates: 2023–2024) and argued that the bank’s freeze, and the police seizure directed under Section 106 BNSS, was illegal and without proper procedure. The State and Bank submitted that the court below lacked power to lift freeze over non-seized items and that the de facto complainant should be heard. The Court relied on Enrica Lexie M.T. v. Doramma (2012 KHC 4259) to emphasize procedural safeguards in seizure. Ultimately, the Court held the freeze illegal and allowed the petitions, directing release of the ornaments on payment of any arrears due, while noting the constitutional protection of property under Article 300A. The decision underscores due process, lawful seizure, and balancing police power with property rights.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3976 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 482 CrPC read with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) filed by Shyny S. Jose, the petitioner, in Crime No. 172/2025 of Karamana Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged are Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), with a maximum possible punishment of up to seven years. The petitioner asserts willingness to comply with any conditions if bail is granted and submits that arrest may not be necessary at this stage, given the limited maximum sentence and the need for proper investigation. The Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. The High Court frames its analysis on the guiding principle from the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another, emphasizing that an arrest in cases punishable up to seven years requires justification, and the arresting authority must write and justify the reasons for arrest or non-arrest, along with the preventive purposes under Section 41 CrPC. In view of this, the Court directs the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer within three weeks; during interrogation, arrest shall not be effected. If arrest becomes necessary after interrogation, it must be in strict compliance with Arnesh Kumar. The petitioner may file a bail application at production, which should be considered expeditiously, with adherence to Arnesh Kumar’s principles. The order thus disposes of the bail application with specific, condition-oriented directions.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P11, an order of the 2nd respondent (Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs, Northern Zone) denying permission for a living donor transplant between the petitioner Saleena ChembraKunnath (1st petitioner) suffering from chronic liver disease and donor-nonrelative Nasar P.K. (3rd petitioner). The 2nd respondent withheld the joint Form 11/3 application for a certificate of altruism pending a certificate of altruism from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guruvayoor, and ultimately rejected the joint application on grounds that the police report did not categorically rule out a financial transaction, thus not meeting the statutory requirements under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014. The petition contends that the Act and Rules permit altruistic donation to non-near-relatives upon prior Authorisation Committee approval and emphasize prevention of commercial dealings; Rules 7(3) and 19 outline the considerations and process. The Court underscores that the Authority must apply independent judgment, provide cogent reasons, and ensure transparency; citing Kuldeep Singh (2005) 11 SCC 122 and Kranti Associates; and Ismail Kunju v. State of Kerala (2025 (1) KHC 547) for reasons-based decisions. The Court quashes Ext.P11 and directs reconsideration of the joint application, after hearing, with a reasoned order within three weeks, while preserving the Court’s position that no determination on merits is made at this stage.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3994 OF 2025 On 28 March 2025, in Bail Application No. 3994 of 2025, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam heard the bail plea of Manu M.S., accused in crime no. 339/2025 of Chathannoor Police Station, Kollam. The petitioner faces allegations under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) including non-bailable Section 118(1) along with other sections (126(2), 115(2), 324(5), and 3(5)). The prosecution states grave injuries and financial loss but notes no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. The petitioner contends that only one non-bailable offence exists, that he is willing to comply with stringent conditions, and that the maximum possible punishment for the offences is up to three years. Citing established bail jurisprudence, including Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the court’s own decisions, and leading precedents such as Chidambaram, Siddharth, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal, and Anzar Azeez, the court reaffirmed the principle that bail is the rule and arrest is the exception, provided statutory conditions are met and the owner of liberty is protected. The court noted lack of antecedents and balanced this with the imperative of investigating the case. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed with conditions, including appearance before the investigating officer within two weeks for interrogation, potential arrest only on bail bond terms, a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, travel restrictions, and non-interference with witnesses. The order emphasizes ongoing investigative rights and potential cancellation if conditions are violated.
The petitioner, Mohamad Iqbal.K.M, owns two parcels of land in Kalloore Thekkumuri Village, Chalakkudy taluk: a 10-cent residential plot (Sy. No. 463/1-1) and a 15.98-cent garden plot (Sy. No. 463/3-3). He filed Form-6 applications under Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Rules, 2008, seeking change of land use for the two properties. The 1st respondent granted the applications but directed payment of conversion fees, calculated at 10% of fair value, via Exts. P8 and P9. The petitioner challenges these orders on the ground that under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and its schedule, no fee is payable for conversion up to 25 cents, and further that the lands were acquired before 30.12.2017, making him eligible for exemption. The court relies on Revenue Divisional Officer v. Dr. A.V. Sajeev (2023(4) KLT 331), which held that exemption may apply to holdings consisting of separate documents if the land per document is within 25 cents and purchases were prior to 30.12.2017. Applying that principle, the court holds that the petitioner is not liable to pay conversion fees for the change of nature and sets aside Exts. P8 and P9 to that extent. It directs the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders on Exts. P6 and P7 without insisting on conversion fees within two months. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
This writ petition, before the High Court of Kerala, challenges a debit freeze imposed on the petitioner’s bank account No. 12940100079659 by the Federal Bank, acting on a requisition from the State Crime Records Bureau. The petitioner, Ahamed P.I., contends that the bank’s freezing of his funds is arbitrary and the balance is inaccessible beyond the amount specified in the police requisition, thereby affecting his ability to conduct ordinary banking transactions. The respondents acknowledge the freeze and indicate that the connected matter concerns Rs. 8,063. The court, after hearing counsel for both sides, relies on is/are precedents including Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India and Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd, to frame the governing approach: the freeze should be confined to the amount mentioned in the police requisition and the police must inform the bank whether the freeze should continue and for how long, within a defined period. If information is received, banks must act accordingly; if not, petitioners may approach the court again. The judgment also cites State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen to stress the importance of timely reporting under Section 102 Cr.P.C. (now Section 106 of the BNSS 2023). Consequently, the petition ends with directions designed to implement these principles forthwith.
This writ petition, WP(C) No. 7668 of 2025, is filed by Vinod T. and Manoj S., residents of Arattupuzha Grama Panchayat, challenging the Delimitation Commission’s Ext.P1 guidelines for delimiting wards in the Alappuzha Municipality. The key issue is whether the delimitation should be based on the number of households as proposed in Ext.P1, or strictly on population as defined by Article 243(f) of the Constitution and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The petition notes that after amendments to Section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the number of wards in the 4th respondent Panchayat increased from 18 to 19, prompting the delimitation exercise under Ext.P3. Ext.P1 prescribes distributing inhabitant population among wards by calculating an average population per household using the 2011 census data and the Panchayat Assessment Register as of 01-10-2024, with the proposed constituency population derived from the average households. Petitioners allege that relying on households data is inconsistent with constitutional directives and results in discrepancies such as duplication of households and inclusion of uninhabited or demolished dwellings. The respondents defend Ext.P1 as a rational, scientific method to achieve equal population distribution in accordance with Article 243-C and Section 6. The court ultimately holds that using Census 2011 data with 19 wards is not illegal, and imperfections can be addressed through objections; the writ is dismissed, allowing the delimitation process to proceed. The court emphasizes that data issues can be rectified in the final notification process.
This writ petition filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) seeks a mandamus to compel the Angamaly Station House Officer to act on Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 complaints dated 29.01.2025 concerning Chirakkal Mahadeva Temple, a PD Devaswom under TDB, and to authorise a joint survey by the District Survey Superintendent and Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy) to measure the disputed property and evict encroachments. The Board also prays for a declaration that respondents 5 and 6 have no right to obstruct the temple’s arattu ritual through Survey No. 167/9, and for access for temple rituals. During admission, a related suit O.S. No. 58/2025 before the Munsiff Court, Aluva by respondents 5 and 6 against TAC and Devaswom officers was brought to light, with allegations of concealment and attempted interim protection. The Court directed respondents 5 and 6 to file an additional counter affidavit explaining their conduct and noted the conflicting positions regarding temple land, governance, and encroachment. It ultimately disposed of the petition by directing the District Survey Superintendent to conclude the Land Conservancy proceedings already initiated under Ext.P2 within three months, with hearing and the possibility of written submissions, while leaving title disputes and other contentions for separate proceedings. The festival's Arattu occurred as scheduled, and the Court refrained from deciding ownership beyond the ongoing proceedings, emphasising parens patriae protection for religious endowments.
This writ petition challenges a tender issued by the Kerala Hydel Tourism Centre for water-sports operations at Munnar and the Banasurasagar Dam. The petitioner, Binu K Thomas, is the Director of Periyar Water Sports (P) Ltd., which has been operating under a revenue-share agreement with the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P4 for tenders; the petitioner along with respondents 3 and 4 bid for the contract. Following submissions and a status-quo directive, the 2nd respondent declared respondents 3 and 4 ineligible due to allegedly fabricated documents, and a new entity, New Periyar Water Sports, emerged as the successful bidder. The petitioner claims mala fides and arbitrariness in the evaluation, alleging collusion and misrepresentation, and seeks either a directive in his favour or at least continuation of status quo until tender finalization. The respondents contend that the petitioner lacks locus standi because he did not participate in the tender, and argues that clause 5 of Ext.P5 allows associates to meet technical requirements and that all three bidders qualified for the subsequent rounds. The matter was heard, with extensive reference to tender clauses and prior jurisprudence (Jagdish Mandal; Afcons; Silpi Constructions) establishing that courts should not ordinarily interfere with tender decisions that are bona fide and in public interest. The High Court dismissed the petition as lacking substance, upholding the tender authority’s assessment.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1638 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC before the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, filed by Rajesh KM, the sole accused in Crime No. 145/2023 of Nilambur Excise Range Office, Malappuram, seeking pre-arrest bail. The accused is charged with offences under Sections 8(1) & (2) and 67B of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077, for allegedly possessing 2 litres of arrack which was found on his motorcycle KL-57-Q-5226 during a patrolling operation on 08.12.2023. The accused allegedly fled on seeing the Excise team, and the contraband along with the motorcycle was seized. The prosecution contends that the accused’s arrest was warranted by the recovery of contraband, his flight, and his criminal antecedents (including Crime No.118/2022). The petitioner claims innocence, asserts false implication, and argues custodial interrogation is unnecessary as there is no recovery from him. Section 41A of the Abkari Act is invoked by the prosecution, which requires the court to evaluate whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit offences while on bail, when opposed by the Public Prosecutor. The court, applying the precedents in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and Jai Prakash Singh, weighs gravity of the offence, antecedents, flight risk, and likelihood of tampering with evidence or witnesses, and concludes that custodial interrogation is necessary. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to surrender within 10 days; if surrendered, the jurisdictional court may consider the bail application on its merits.
WP(Crl) Nos.240 of 2025 and 247 of 2025 These writ petitions challenge arrests in two offences under the BNSS/NDPS framework on grounds that the accused were not informed of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 BNSS, 2023. The petitioners—father of the accused in Crime No.1498/2024 of Tirur Police Station, Malappuram, and mother of the second accused in Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta—contend that non-compliance with the grounds‑of‑arrest requirement renders the arrests illegal and warrants their immediate release. The Court notes that both arrests were made without furnishing written grounds of arrest; it emphasizes that Article 22(1) and BNSS create a mandatory obligation protecting personal liberty under Article 21. It cites Supreme Court precedents—Pankaj Bansal v. UOI, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana—to show that a copy of written grounds should be provided as a matter of course and that non‑compliance vitiates the arrest. The Public Prosecutor argues that formalities were complied with and bail applications were dismissed by the trial court, but the High Court holds that compliance is the arresting officer’s burden to prove and that non‑compliance invalidates the arrests. Consequently, both accused must be released forthwith; the court clarifies this does not foreclose lawful re‑arrest.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4009 OF 2025 Neethu Rethnakaran, the petitioner in Bail Application No. 4009 of 2025, seeks bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with Crime No. 43/2025 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, for alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The prosecution contends that the second accused promised employment visas in Hungary to the complainant through NSAI Abroad Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., and the petitioner, described as a sleeping partner in the firm, allegedly received deposits totaling Rs. 3.5 lakh on multiple occasions; the visa was not issued and the money was not returned. The petitioner maintains she played no daily role in the company and has no criminal antecedents, and she is willing to abide by stringent bail conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, pointing to the seriousness of the offences and the risk to the investigation. After hearing both sides, the High Court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, 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 granted bail with conditions: Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO, cooperation with investigation, no travel abroad without court permission, no commission of similar offences, and a caveat that non-compliance could lead to cancellation of bail, applying the principle in Anzar Azeez.
This is a bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, filed by Muhammed Maharoof P, accused in Crime No. 485/2025 of Tirur Police Station, Malappuram, alleging offences under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 20 r/w 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, for allegedly transporting river sand in a lorry without a valid permit. The petitioner contends that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out and expresses willingness to comply with any conditions the Court may impose. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail. The Court recalls a prior order dated 31.12.2021 in BA No.9571/2021, noting that the offences under Sections 20 and 23 of the River Banks and Sand Removal Act are bailable in nature and that, where a special law governs river-sand issues, the IPC provision would not apply. Relying on established bail principles, including Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (bail as a rule) and subsequent Kerala and Supreme Court authorities (Siddharth v. State of UP, Manish Sisodia, Anzar Azeez, Sushila Aggarwal), the Court allows pre-arrest bail with stringent conditions: cooperation with investigation, appearance before IO within two weeks, bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, not leaving the country, and prohibition on committing a similar offence. The order emphasizes personal liberty, the distinction between arrest powers and their justification, and the possibility of canceling bail for violation of conditions.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3681 OF 2025 Aboobacker Sidhique, the petitioner in Bail Application No. 3681 of 2025, seeks bail in Crime No. 216/2025 of Kumbla Police Station, Kasaragod District, Kerala. The offences alleged are punishable under sections 126(2), 118(1), 324(4) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act; it is also alleged that section 118(2) was involved. The prosecution case is that on 10.03.2025 at 2:45 pm, the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant with a cricket bat and damaged the complainant’s auto rickshaw, allegedly after learning the complainant’s wife was in a relationship with him. The petitioner denies the allegations and says the incident was a spur-of-the-moment reaction, with no criminal antecedents in the record. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but concedes no prior antecedents. The court recalls well-settled bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh, among others, to emphasize personal liberty and restraint. It ultimately grants bail with conditions: appear before IO within two weeks for interrogation; if arrest is proposed then bond Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; not leaving India; not repeating offences; cooperation with investigation; and that recoveries may be effected if necessary. The decision relies on Anzar Azeez’s principle and cautions that violation may lead to cancellation of bail.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4041 OF 2025 This is a bail application filed by Nishad, an accused in Crime No.5/2025 of Kollam Excise Enforcement & Anti-Narcotic Special Squad, Kollam, alleging possession of 1.930 kgs of ganja in violation of NDPS Act provisions. The petitioner, in custody since 26-01-2025, contends readiness to abide by stringent conditions if released. The prosecution opposes bail, pointing to his alleged involvement in three other crimes. Previously, the court had refused bail in BA No. 2895/2025 but granted liberty to renew after two weeks; the present petition is filed after about 60 days of custody with the final report not yet filed, raising statutory bail considerations. The High Court reiterates the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and subsequent judgments. It also references Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement to emphasize that courts should grant bail if the case justifies it and that the right to a fair trial under Article 21 remains protected. The order ultimately allows the bail application with directions including bond, two sureties, appearance before the IO, restrictions on travel, and prohibition from committing similar offenses, while observing the Anzar Azeez principle as applicable.
The Kerala High Court heard WP(C) 10566 of 2025, a writ petition filed by N. Jayakumar challenging a debit freeze imposed on his savings account No. 102601000001910 by the Indian Overseas Bank Sarkara Branch, allegedly in response to a police requisition. The petitioner asserts that the freezing is illegal and arbitrary and seeks a direction to lift the freeze. The respondents include the Grievance Officer NCCRP (Kerala Region), the Union of India (Home Affairs), the Indian Overseas Bank, and the Central Region Cyber Police Station, with the SHO of the central police station appearing as the 4th respondent. The court notes the freeze concerns Rs. 38,200 and frames the issue as whether the freezing order can be confined to the sum mentioned in the police order, so that the petitioner can transact with the balance. In considering identical matters, the court cites Dr. Sajeer v. RBI (2024 (1) KLT 826), and subsequent cases (Nazeer K.T v. Federal Bank Ltd; Teesta Atul Setalvad v. Gujarat; Shento Varghese v. Husen) to emphasize that freezes should be limited to police-requisitioned amounts and that police must inform banks about continued seizure within prescribed timeframes. It also relies on Section 102 Cr.P.C. (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) regarding seizure reporting. The court directs the 3rd respondent bank to confine the freeze to the stated amount, directs police to inform banks on continuation, and, if no information is received within two months, to lift the debit freeze. The petition is disposed accordingly.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3668 OF 2025 This is a bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in a case registered as Crime No. 1545/2024 of Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam, alleging offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner, Mohammed Afeef, is accused of collecting Rs. 15,00,000 under the pretext of an online trading venture, allegedly through Google Pay and cash, without investing or returning profits. The application came up for admission after a prior order on 26.03.2025 directing the Investigating Officer to interrogate the petitioner and report whether custodial interrogation was necessary, with a stay on arrest until the next posting date. On 04.04.2025, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner’s statement had been recorded and custodial interrogation was not necessary; if arrest is recorded, a direction for release on bail with conditions could be considered. The court relied on Supreme Court principles that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of UP, and Manish Sisodia v. CBI, among others, to emphasize personal liberty and the limited role of arrest. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed with conditions: appearance before IO within two weeks; if arrest occurs, bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; cooperation with investigation; restrictions on leaving India and on committing similar offences. The order preserves the jurisdiction of the IO to continue investigations and recoveries as needed.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1590 OF 2024 This bail application arises from Crime No. 2588/2023 registered at Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam, where the accused, Mujeeb N, is said to have impersonated a person to cheat the defacto complainant by inducing him to like YouTube channels with a promise of earnings, leading to a demand and transfer of Rs 2,00,000 after an initial payment of Rs 300. The offences alleged are under sections 419 and 420 IPC and section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner was arrested on 24 January 2024 and seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC, contending that the allegations are false, he was falsely implicated, and that the dispute with the defacto complainant has been amicably settled with full repayment. The prosecution’s public prosecutor opposed bail but conceded the custody period and that investigation is nearly complete with recovery effected. The defacto complainant’s counsel states the matter has been settled. The High Court, after considering custody since 24.01.2024, the completion of investigation and recovery, and the out-of-court settlement, and noting the sett lement between the parties, allowed the bail application. The order imposes standard bail conditions, including bonding, sureties, regular appearance before the IO, non-tampering with witnesses, surrender of passport if any, and cooperation with investigation, and references a Supreme Court principle permitting police action for recovery even on bail.
This writ petition under Article 227 challenges an order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench, dated 26 October 2022, passed in IA/IBC 331/KOB/2022 (in IBA/38/KOB/2019), which purportedly voided an assessment order dated 25 February 2021 under the Kerala VAT (KVAT) Act and directed the resolution professional to independently consider the KVAT claim, ignoring the assessment. Albanna Engineering (India) Private Limited, the corporate debtor, was admitted to CIRP on 25 October 2019; moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC and a liquidation order on 2 December 2021 shield the debtor from coercive actions. The Department had assessed 2015-16 KVAT dues of Rs.11.76 crore, which the resolution professional challenged by seeking permission to file an appeal under Section 33(5) of the IBC. The core issue is whether the NCLT has the power to declare an assessment order void ab initio under Section 33(5). The High Court relies on Sundaresh Bhatt (2023) and V. M. Deshpande to emphasize that moratorium permits only limited adjudication of dues and prohibits recovery during moratorium, and that IBC prevails over other laws (Section 238). The Court ultimately finds the NCLT order untenable, sets it aside, and remits the matter to NCLT for early consideration of IA 331/IBC/2022.
This is a bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, filed in the Kerala High Court by three accused—Akhil K.S., Prashob C.D., and Sajeev K.S.—in Crime No. 204/2025 of Vadakkekara Police Station, Ernakulam. The offences alleged are non-bailable under BNSS, including sections 333, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The prosecution contends that on 02.03.2025 at about 5:00 PM, the first petitioner trespassed into the defacto complainant’s hall and assaulted her left hand with a stick, with similar assault on her husband; the petitioners challenge these allegations, offering to comply with any conditions if granted bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but reported no criminal antecedents against the petitioners. The wound certificate reportedly shows only pain and swelling, suggesting non-extreme bodily injury. The court discusses bail as a general rule with jail as an exception, citing Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Manish Sisodia v. CBI, among others, to emphasize personal liberty. The court ultimately grants bail with stringent conditions, noting the lack of antecedents, the need to protect investigation, and applicable precedents (Anzar Azeez, Sushila Aggarwal). The order is signed by P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
