This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the accused as Crl.M.C No. 2156 of 2025 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, challenging the proceedings in CC No. 282/2024 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod, arising from Crime No. 131/2024 (Vanitha Police Station, Kasaragod). The petition seeks to quash the entire criminal process on the basis of an amicable settlement reached between the parties, with the de facto complainant (2nd respondent) concurring and expressing no grievance against the petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2. Statements were recorded, and the de facto complainant’s affidavit (Annexure-2) confirms that the disputes have been settled; the two parties are living together as husband and wife at the matrimonial home. The court notes that the settlement is genuine and bonafide, and the defacto complainant supports quashing. The petition relies on judicial principles from B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh that permit quashing in light of settlements when continued proceedings would be an abuse of process and there is little likelihood of conviction, and recognizes that Section 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023) is compoundable. The court, after considering these factors, holds that the necessary parameters are satisfied and that quashing would secure the ends of justice, consequently allowing the Crl.M.C and quashing Annexure-1 Final Report and all further proceedings in CC No. 282/2024.
This Division Bench of the Kerala High Court hears a DBP petition by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and its Executive Engineer seeking court sanction for contract work following a devastating fire on 01.05.2022 that damaged Kalarkode Devaswom temple structures at Ambalappuzha (Valiyambalam and Thidappally). The Board had prepared an estimate of Rs. 40,38,000 (inclusive of 18% GST) and received technical and administrative sanctions, with award of contract proposed to Sri Samkumar at 25% below the sanctioned estimate, based on a Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) request and consent letters. The matter raised by the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, the Advocate General’s office, and the Government Pleader centers on governance, auditing, and compliance with the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and its Rules/Bye-laws, particularly Sections 15A, 24, 27, 31, and 31A and Clauses 2, 9, 11, 12, and 18. The court canvasses established jurisprudence on trustees’ fiduciary duties and the Board’s guardianship of temple properties (Ram Mohan Das; A.A. Gopalakrishnan; Arjunan T.N.; Sunil Kumar C.; Mohanan Nair; Suo Motu). It ultimately permits the Board to proceed with the award but orders that the entire project’s income and expenditure be subjected to statutory audit, ensuring transparency and compliance with safeguards.
The petitioner IMG Digital Solution LLP approached the Kerala High Court seeking directions to lift the debit freeze on their bank account (No. 237302000000157) held with Indian Overseas Bank, Up Hill, Malappuram. The freeze was reportedly imposed by the bank under a police requisition. The petitioner contends the freezing action is illegal and arbitrary since the police requisition did not specify any amount to be frozen, rendering the blanket freeze unwarranted and prejudicial to business. The bank, on the other hand, submits that a requisition from the police was received, but it did not mention any amount in the requisition, which purportedly limits the bank’s ability to freeze beyond what is stipulated. The court cites Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) and Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768), along with Section 102 of the CrPC (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), to set out the governing principles. The court endorses the view that freezes must be confined to amounts specified and directs police to inform banks whether continued freezing is required, and if so, for how long. It further directs banks to lift the debit freeze if no compliance information is received within specified timelines and reserves the petitioners’ rights to approach the court again if needed. The petition is disposed of with operative directions.
Rasna A.K, the wife of Sujithmon, challenges an order of detention issued under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAA(P) Act) against her husband. The detention order (Ext. P2) was issued on 28 November 2024 by the District Police in Peringome, with Government approval on 10 December 2024 and subsequent reference to the Advisory Board on 12 December 2024. The Advisory Board delivered its opinion on 29 January 2025, and the Government confirmed the detention on 3 February 2025. The detenu submitted representations dated 4 December 2024 to revoke or modify the order; the Government considered the representation only on 6 February 2025, after the order of detention had been confirmed. The petitioner’s counsel pressed a single ground: the undue delay in considering the representation after its submission before the Advisory Board would violate the detenu’s constitutional rights under Article 22(5) and related authorities. The State contends there was no undue delay, noting that the Advisory Board’s opinion was received and the detention was confirmed promptly; Khader v. Union of India and related authorities were cited. The Court found the delay without satisfactory explanation and held the continued detention illegal, allowing the writ petition and directing release forthwith, with communication of the order to prison authorities.
This writ petition challenges a debit freeze imposed on the petitioner bank’s account (No. 022205001789) by the 13th respondent bank, following police requisitions in the course of an investigation. The petitioner contends that the freezing is arbitrary and severely disrupts banking operations and customers’ rights. The 13th respondent asserts the freeze corresponds to a disputed amount of Rs 1,33,28,297 and is a necessary measure to preserve assets during ongoing inquiry. The court relies on a line of precedents—Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India; Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd; State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy; Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat; and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen—to support a restrained, law‑compliant approach to freezes. The key principle is that freezes should be limited to the amount specified in police orders and that seizures must be reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 102 Cr.P.C (interpreted as Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The court directs banks to confine the freeze to the stated amount, directs police to inform banks whether the freeze should continue and for how long, and mandates prompt service of the judgment to relevant officers. If no information is provided within specified timeframes, the bank may lift the debit freeze, and the petitioner may approach the court again with its contentions reserved.
CRL.M.C. No. 1441 of 2025 This is a criminal miscellaneous case filed in the Kerala High Court by four accused named Rahul Prasad, V. I. Prasad, Ansamma Dominic and Amala Prasad, seeking quashing of Crime No. 1041/2021 of Manarcad Police Station (now CC No. 745/2021 before JFCM-I, Kottayam) under sections 498A, 294(b), 323, 506(i) and 34 IPC. The State and the defacto complainant Lakshmi Shekhar are respondents. The court records that the parties have settled their disputes amicably through mediation and, on the basis of an accompanying affidavit and a mediation settlement (Annexure D and E), the petitioners and defacto complainant have filed for a divorce and expressed no objection to quashing. The court cites a jurisprudential trajectory starting from B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (and the subsequent Gian Singh decision) to examine whether quashing non-compoundable offences is permissible where the settlement suggests little likelihood of conviction and where continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process. The court finds the settlement genuine and bona fide, notes that the offences (including some compoundable ones) are resolved, and concludes that quashing the entire proceedings would secure ends of justice. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings are quashed. The order emphasizes that ends of justice can override strict legal formulations in light of genuine settlement and lack of reasonable likelihood of conviction.
This is a Kerala High Court writ petition (WP(C) No. 34919 of 2016) filed by the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. challenging encroachments and unauthorised religious structures on government land leased to the petitioner’s Chandanappally estate. The court scrutinises repeated attempts by private religious groups to establish temples in divisions of the estate, despite undertakings by authorities and police interventions. The petitioner argues that the land is government property under Ext. P1 lease and that allowing encroachments and religious structures would violate the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and public order. The respondent authorities contend that some small temples arose to meet workers’ worship needs near the LAYAM housing complex, and that removing such structures could disrupt law and order. The judgment canvasses constitutional safeguards for religious freedom (Article 26) and cautions against turning public land into religious places, highlighting the risk of communal disharmony. The court binds itself to remedy by directing government officers to evict encroachers and to regulate religious places through guidelines, with emphasis on not allowing new religious structures on Government land except in rare, justified cases. The decision confirms Ext. P13 and disposes of the petition, while laying down actionable directions for evacuation and policy formation to preserve communal harmony and state property.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1674 OF 2024 This is a pre-arrest bail matter under Sec. 438 CrPC before the Kerala High Court (Single Judge) in Bail Appl. No. 1674 of 2024 arising from Crime No. 203/2024 of Sreekariyam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners, accused 1 (Babu) and accused 2 (Sunil Kumar), are said to have acted in concert to commit offences under IPC sections 452 (trespass), 294(b) (obscene/abusive remarks), 323 (hurt), 326 (causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon) and 506 read with 34 IPC, in a incident on 17 February 2024 around 23:30 hours. The prosecution alleges that the second accused assaulted the defacto complainant with a torch, causing a fracture to her left ring finger, while the first accused verbally abused her; there is an allegation of common intention and trespass into the complainant’s sit-out. The petitioners contend they are falsely implicated, with no necessity for custodial interrogation and that 326 IPC is not attracted; they seek pre-arrest bail. The State, through the Public Prosecutor, refutes this, noting the injury, the necessity of custodial interrogation and recovery, though conceding no overt act against the first accused under 326. The court cites Supreme Court guidance that anticipatory bail is exceptional and should be granted rarely, and, after considering the materials, holds no exceptional grounds for the second accused, while granting bail to the first accused on defined conditions (ten-day surrender, bond, sureties, cooperation, no witness intimidation, no further offences) with a view to balancing investigation and personal liberty.
The petitioner, Abdulla Sharafudheen, is the second accused in Crime No.149/2025 of Enathu Police Station, Pathanamthitta, charged under Sections 420 read with 34 IPC for alleged cheating in relation to a loan from Omkar Finance. The prosecution alleges that the first accused induced the defacto complainant to transfer Rs.50,000 to the petitioner's account and Rs.2,57,000 to the first accused’s account to secure a loan, which was not obtained and the money not returned. The petitioner seeks bail under Section 482 Cr.P.C./BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). Counsel for the petitioner argues lack of direct involvement, noting the arrangement was primarily between the first accused and the complainant, with a larger amount deposited in the first accused’s account; the first accused is already arrested and released on bail. The Public Prosecutor counters that there are serious allegations and while no criminal antecedents are shown against the petitioner, custodial interrogation is not necessary given the case’s nature. The court considers the authorities on bail (Chidambaram, Siddharth, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal, Anzar Azeez) to reiterate that bail is the rule and the jail is the exception, and grants bail on stringent conditions. The order directs the petitioner to appear for interrogation within two weeks, post-interrogation, bond and sureties, travel restrictions, no obstructions to the investigation, and possible cancellation of bail if conditions are violated, upholding fair trial principles.
CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018, 612/2018, 613/2018, 617/2018, 618/2018, 620/2018, 621/2018, 623/2018, 624/2018, 626/2018, 630/2018, 639/2018, 643/2018, 648/2018, 649/2018, 654/2018, 659/2018, 660/2018, 663/2018, 665/2018, 669/2018, 675/2018, 679/2018, 680/2018, 683/2018, 684/2018, 685/2018, 687/2018, 688/2018, 691/2018, 692/2018, 693/2018, 694/2018, 695/2018, 696/2018, 698/2018, 702/2018, 703/2018, 704/2018, 708/2018, 709/2018, 711/2018, 712/2018, 713/2018, 716/2018, 719/2018, 721/2018, 722/2018, 723/2018 This is a consolidated order of the High Court of Kerala (P. Somarajan, J.) dealing with Criminal Revision Cases bearing CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018 and connected cases. The batch arises from suo motu proceedings under the Administrative Committee’s resolution dated 18.09.2017 and challenges orders of the Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, in various ST numbers. Hearing took place on 12.06.2024 across multiple connected matters (CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018, 612/2018, 613/2018, 617/2018, 618/2018, 620/2018, 621/2018, 623/2018, 624/2018, 626/2018, 630/2018, 639/2018, 643/2018, 648/2018, 649/2018, 654/2018, 659/2018, 660/2018, 663/2018, 665/2018, 669/2018, 675/2018, 679/2018, 680/2018, 683/2018, 684/2018, 685/2018, 687/2018, 688/2018, 691/2018, 692/2018, 693/2018, 694/2018, 695/2018, 696/2018, 698/2018, 702/2018, 703/2018, 704/2018, 708/2018, 709/2018, 711/2018, 712/2018, 713/2018, 716/2018, 719/2018, 721/2018, 722/2018, 723/2018). The court notes the provision of law involved (Cr.P.C. Sec. 258) and the legal question whether a Magistrate may stop proceedings under Section 258 in summons cases if the accused cannot be located or costs exceed the permissible limits. It cites a 2023 Kerala High Court OnLine decision Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC OnLine 821) for the settled position that stoppage of proceedings under Section 258 is permissible in appropriate circumstances and should not be interfered with by Revisional Courts. The bench concludes that the revisions fail, and there is no interference with the Magistrate’s stoppage of proceedings; the revisions are dismissed/closed. The operative order lists all connected CRL.RC Nos. and is signed by the judge. The neutral citation is not provided in the document.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 9138 of 2023) arises from a challenge to anticipatory bail granted to the seventh respondent in Crime No. 55/2022 (CB, TVM) at the Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram, related to alleged rape and related offences involving the de facto complainant. The petitioner-victim filed the Crl.M.C. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail on the ground that Annexure A6 in the bail petition was forged/fabricated to secure bail, and that subsequent crimes against the accused (though later quashed) and the petition’s prima facie deception warrant recall of the bail order. The Supreme Court had earlier dismissed the Special Leave Petition in limine against this Court’s bail order. The learned Judge examined material including Annexure A6, its provenance, and affidavits from the police authorities showing forgery, and compared authorities governing cancellation of bail (notably where fraud is proved). After hearing, the Court held that the anticipatory bail was obtained by fraud and that cancellation is warranted, directing the 7th respondent’s custody under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., with permission to file for regular bail in the trial court. The case remains listed as SC 671/2024 in the trial court.
This is a Criminal Misc. Case (CrL.MC No.1825 of 2025) heard by a Kerala High Court bench, challenging the order in CC No.384/2023, arising from Crime No.901/2022 registered at Town North Police Station, Palakkad, for offences under IPC sections 354D, 506(i), 511 and 306. The petitioner, Nishad Omanakkuttan, seeks quashing of the entire proceedings under CrPC 482 on the ground that the parties have arrived at a voluntary and amicable settlement. The defacto complainant, Adithya S Nair, supported by the Senior Public Prosecutor, states that the disputes between the parties have been settled and they are living together as husband and wife; she has sworn an affidavit (Annexure 7) stating there is no surviving grievance and no objection to quashing. The court recorded this statement and found the settlement genuine and bonafide. The judgment canvasses guiding principles from Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2007) 4 CTC 769, as well as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab; and Madan Mohan Abbott v. State of Punjab, to justify exercise of the inherent power under CrPC 482 where settlement is real and continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process. The bench concludes that continuing proceedings would serve no purpose, especially since Section 506(i) is compoundable. Consequently, the Crl.MC is allowed and FIR, Final Report, and all further proceedings in CC 384/2023 are quashed as against the petitioner.
W.P.(C.) No. 7889 of 2025 The petition filed by Shaduli K challenges the freezing of his bank account bearing No. 99980103463886 by the Federal Bank, Manjeri, pursuant to a police requisition. The petitioner asserts that the account freeze is illegal and arbitrary and seeks immediate lifting to enable routine transactions. The bank submits that the account is debit frozen for Rs. 20,000, confined to the amount specified in the police requisition. In considering the matter, the Kerala High Court relies on prior rulings, notably Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826), which directs banks to confine freezes to the exact sums mentioned and to obtain police confirmation on continuation. It also refers to Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC Online 768) and judgments on Section 102 Cr.P.C., now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, citing State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen. Relying on these authorities, the court directs a structured set of remedies: confine the freeze to the prescribed amount; require police to inform whether continued freezing is warranted, and for how long; ensure banks act accordingly; and if no information is received within prescribed periods, the petitioner's contentions remain open for future consideration. The writ petition is disposed with these directions.
This criminal revision petition challenges an order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. that dismissed a complaint and proceedings under Section 138(3) Cr.P.C. The dispute concerns alleged obstruction or nuisance related to proposed construction of a compound wall on or near a public way, raising questions about the jurisdiction of Section 133 when civil rights and civil disputes are involved. The petitioners contend that the matter is civil in nature and should be adjudicated in a Civil Court, not by a Magistrate under Section 133 Cr.P.C. The respondents argue that Section 133 empowers a Magistrate to remove obstructions or nuisances in public places or ways if they affect public use or health, and that such orders are appropriate to address the alleged obstruction. The Sub Divisional Magistrate’s order and the subsequent dismissal are scrutinized for whether civil rights are being usurped by an exercise of criminal proceedings. The court discusses the textual meaning of Section 133(1) and emphasizes that the provision targets obstructions or nuisances to public use, not civil disputes over property rights, and that civil remedies should not be foreclosed. It cites Augusthy v. Varkey to illustrate differing jurisprudential views on civil rights versus Section 133 remedies and Suhelkhan Khudyarkhan v. State of Maharashtra to underscore limits of Section 133. The revision is dismissed, with a caveat that parties may pursue civil remedies under lex fori and lex loci in appropriate civil proceedings.
WP(C) Nos. 7037/2024; 7796/2024; 8345/2024 This is a connected set of writ petitions filed in the Kerala High Court challenging executive acts under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 involving the Chengalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The petitions seek to challenge Ext.P5 notices under Section 32(1) proposing supersession of the bank’s managing committee and Ext.P4 orders under Section 33 invoking a part‑time Administrator, on the ground that the governance of the society was being endangered and that procedural requirements were violated. The petitioners, comprising current and former office-bearers of the bank, contend that supersession is an extraordinary remedy, to be used only in exceptional circumstances, and must be accompanied by proper notice inviting objections as contemplated in the first proviso to Section 33(1) (unless not reasonably practicable to publish). They point to alleged irregularities in minutes and minutes’ manipulation to nominate a member, arguing that there was no opportunity of hearing or due process. The respondents defend the Registrar’s action, asserting loss of quorum, administrative vacuum, and the need to prevent stalemate; they rely on bye‑law provisions and emergency powers. The Court holds that invoking Section 33 without prior Section 32(1) proceedings and without the required notice violates the statute, and that natural justice requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. Ext.P4 orders are quashed in part and remitted for fresh orders in accordance with law, with directions to comply with the cited authorities.
This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Shinto, the first accused in Crime No. 2244/2023 of Kundara Police Station, Kollam. The offences alleged include sections 452, 294(b), 506, 323, 324 and 308 IPC, later augmented with Section 307 IPC. The petitioner, arrested on 18 January 2024, contends his innocence and argues that even if prima facie evidence exists, bail should be granted with stringent conditions. The prosecution asserts the seriousness of the injuries inflicted on the complainant and his son, points to the accused’s criminal antecedents, and notes multiple other cases; it argues risk of witness intimidation and obstruction of evidence, urging continued detention. The court cites Supreme Court principles: the presumption of innocence until conviction, bail as the general rule, and detention only as an exception; it also notes that undertrial detention infringing Article 21 is contrary to due process. After considering custody duration (35 days) and that a co-accused received bail, and finding the investigation nearly complete with recovery effected, the court grants bail with a bond of Rs 50,000 and two sureties, and imposes conditions: regular appearance, no intimidation, no new offences, passport surrender, and potential cancellation for breach, with the IO allowed to continue investigation and recoveries even on bail following Sushila Aggarwal. The bail order issues on 23 February 2024 by Justice C.S. Dias.
The petitioners, Amal K A, Anil Kumar, Sindhu and Amritha, filed Crl.M.C. No. 1945 of 2025 in the Kerala High Court seeking quashment of Crime No. 917/2023 of Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam, under IPC Sections 498A, 448 and 506. The defacto complainant, Sneha, and the State challenged the continuation of proceedings but expressed no objection to quashing in light of a settlement between the parties. The Court recorded the defacto complainant’s statement and noted an accompanying Annexure-A3 affidavit affirming a genuine, bona fide settlement reached through mediation, with a similar settlement evidenced in Annexure-A2 (Compromise Petition in MC 50/2023). The court applied established precedents, notably B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, to affirm that inherent power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C (now Sec. 528 of BNSS, 2023) can quash non-compoundable offences where settlement exists and there is little or no likelihood of conviction, while recognizing that some offences (448 and 506) are compoundable. The court found that continuing proceedings would be futile and amount to abuse of process, and that quashing would serve ends of justice. Accordingly, the Cr.M.C. was allowed and the FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No. 917/2023 were quashed.
This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case concerns Benhar P.J., the sole accused in Crime No.203 of 2014 of Manjeri Police Station, Malappuram, now pending as CC No.206/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Forest Offences), Manjeri. The petitioner seeks quashment of the entire proceedings on the strength of a settlement between the parties. On admission, the court directed recording of statements of the defacto complainant and the victims, whose affidavits confirm a genuine, amicable settlement, with no surviving grievance and no objection to quashing. The court notes that the defacto complainant and victims are disinterested to proceed and have no objection in quashing. It is observed that the settlement is genuine and bonafide, supported by Annexures-C, D and E sworn by the defacto complainant and victims. The court relies on established precedents—Kulwinder Singh (Punjab & Haryana HC), Gian Singh and Narinder Singh (Supreme Court) and Madan Mohan Abbot—to hold that quashing is permissible where settlement is voluntary and fair, and continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process and be futile where conviction is unlikely. The order also notes that offences under Sections 323 and 506(i) are compoundable. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and CC No.206/2022, along with the final report and subsequent proceedings, is quashed, thereby securing ends of justice.
On 9.4.2016, Lakshmi T.V. was travelling in a Chevrolet Tavera to Kozhikode Airport when the vehicle capsized due to high speed and negligent driving, resulting in her death. The legal heirs of Lakshmi challenged the award of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Kasaragod in OP(MV) No.171/2018 dated 30.9.2019, seeking higher compensation. The tribunal fixed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.7,000, largely on the lack of evidence by the claimants, and awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,24,528 under various heads, including funeral expenses, clothing, and love and affection, with Rs.20,50,000 being the cap on dependency-related claims. The appellants contended that Lakshmi was employed with Maniyat Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd. and earned Rs.15,000 per month, supported by Exts A1–A4; the insurer adduced no contrary evidence. The High Court relied on Kirti and Another Vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd (2021) 2 SCC 166 to reject the notion of fixing homemaker income at par with a coolie, and on Angad Tiwari & Anr v National Insurance Co Ltd ( Civil Appeal 10950 of 2024, 1.10.2024: 2024 KHC 8590) to hold that income cannot be fixed below minimum wage. Since the accident occurred before the 1.4.2017 minimum wage notification, the court nonetheless fixed the income at Rs.15,000. The tribunal’s structured compensation, notably the Love and Affection head, was found unsustainable. The court allowed the appeal, enhancing heads of compensation and deleting Love and Affection, resulting in a total enhanced compensation of Rs.4,60,972, with interest at 9% p.a. from 01.02.2018 until realisation and interim costs; the insurer is to deposit the amount within two months from the date of the judgment.
BAIL APPL. Nos. 2634/2025, 2577/2025, 2579/2025 These bail applications, heard by a single judge of the Kerala High Court, arise from Crime Nos. 127/2025 and 128/2025 registered at Atholy Police Station, Kozhikode. The petitioners, Shameer Salahudheen and Mishajudheeen (BA 2577/2025 and 2579/2025) and Sabu Basheer (BA 2634/2025), are alleged to have duped the defacto complainant by creating fake GST bills and promising to handle GST-related matters for the complainant's company, Olive Enterprises. The forged bills reportedly totaled Rs 17,78,100 in 127/2025 and Rs 99,65,662 in 128/2025. The prosecution contented that custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage and that the petitioners should be interrogated by the IO; the defacto complainant opposed bail. The court, invoking the presumption in favor of bail, cites Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that bail is the rule and arrest is the exception, and stresses personal liberty. It also notes that the power to arrest must be justified, not exercised routinely; arrest should not unduly impede fair trial. The court refers to Sushila Aggarwal, Anzar Azeez, Siddharth v UP, Joginder Kumar, and Manish Sisodia to justify granting bail subject to conditions. Accordingly, the court grants bail with conditions: the petitioners to appear before the IO within two weeks for interrogation; if arrest is contemplated, they shall be released on bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties; they must cooperate, not leave India, and refrain from new offences; violation may lead to cancellation of bail.
