BAIL APPL. NO. 4522 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed in the Kerala High Court by Kens Sabu, challenging the Special Court NDPS judgment in SC No. 26 of 2023 in Crime No. 1358/2022 of Thalayolaparambu Police Station. The petitioner is accused in NDPS offences alleging 92.340 kilograms of ganja transported in a vehicle (registered KA-03/NB 3645), with one co-accused allegedly possessing 1.3 milligrams of MDMA for personal use. The prosecution contends the quantity constitutes a “commercial quantity” and maintains the offences are serious, justifying no bail. The petitioner’s counsel relies on Supreme Court pronouncements including Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024 Live Law SC 416), Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. State of West Bengal, Hasanujjaman v. State of West Bengal, and Shuaib A.S. v. State of Kerala, arguing that prolonged incarceration beyond prescribed thresholds and delays caused by the prosecution can warrant relaxation of the NDPS bail embargo under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Public Prosecutor counters that the gravity and quantity warrant denial of bail. Ultimately, the High Court recognizes the cited principles and disposes of the bail application with directions for a fresh bail filing within two weeks and for the trial court to decide in light of those principles, potentially mitigating Article 21 concerns over the NDPS constraint.
Cont.Case (C) No.1227 of 2019 This Contempt Case (C) No.1227 of 2019 arises out of W.P.(C) No.35423 of 2014 and concerns alleged willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment dated 27.02.2019, in turn following Annexure A4 judgment of 12.10.2018. The petitioners, three former employees (petitioners 14–16 in the referenced writ petition), invoke Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, contending that the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) failed to implement the court’s directions regarding pension-related entitlements. The judgment traces the sequence of Supreme Court proceedings culminating in Civil Appeal Nos. 8143-8144 of 2022 and the detailed judgment dated 04.11.2022 (AIR 2022 SC 5634), which upheld the validity of Notification No. G.S.R.609(E) dated 22.08.2014 and laid down read-downs on the amended and pre-amendment pension provisions (paras 44(i)–(x)). It also cites the earlier R.C. Gupta case (2018) 14 SCC 809 in clarifying options available to members. Following the Supreme Court’s 2022 directions, the Kerala High Court holds that the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by EPFO. Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of with a direction to undertake the reconsideration in accordance with law, and the case is closed, while preserving EPFO’s right to implement adjustments consistent with the statutory framework and the SC directions.
The National Insurance Company Ltd. (NICL) appeals against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, award in OP(MV) No.1124 of 2006, whereby compensation was granted to the claimant (a pillion rider) with liability fastened on the insured, owner and driver, and insurer. The accident involved motorcycle KL7/R-1659; the petitioner sustained injuries while riding as a pillion. The Tribunal held NICL liable to pay Rs.54,223 with 8% interest and fastened the liability on respondents 1–3. NICL contends that Ext. B1 is an “act only” policy covering third-party risks, not the pillion rider, and that the registered owner remained the owner in records despite claims of transfer to Reneesh in 2004; the vehicle was uninsured. The insurer relies on Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar and Others (2018) 3 SCC 1 to argue that where a vehicle is under hire purchase/lease/hypothecation, the possessor under that agreement is treated as owner, making the RC owner liable; it also relies on Oriential Insurance Company Ltd. v. Thilakan (2021) 4 KLT 413 to support non-coverage of pillion under act-only policy. The respondents contend the insurer should indemnify for the pillion rider’s claim. The High Court ultimately finds the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the insurer and holds the registered owner liable, exonerating NICL from liability.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.4981/2023) arises from Crime No.54/2020 of the Ernakulam Excise Range Office. Accused Nos. 1 and 2, Rajeev and Pyarilal, challenge the final report (Annexure-A1) filed in C.C. No.820/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam, for offences under Sections 57(aa) and 56(b) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The prosecution alleges that on 29.10.2019, at about 4:15 pm, samples of toddy were taken from a toddy shop and analysis detected starch, violating the licence conditions. Section 57(aa), introduced in 2018, prescribes a specific offence for the presence of starch in toddy, while Section 56(b) is a general provision penalising willful breach of licence conditions. The petition contends that including both offences in the same final report is legally impermissible and against settled law, citing Ani & Another v. State of Kerala & Anr (2021) 6 KHC 176. They seek quashing the 56(b) charge. The Public Prosecutor opposes, arguing that both provisions cover distinct aspects of the alleged misconduct. The High Court, applying the Ani precedent, holds that where a specific provision exists, the general provision cannot be invoked in the same charge-sheet. Annexure-A1 is therefore quashed to the extent it charges Section 56(b). The petition is allowed in part, permitting continuation under Section 57(aa) alone, subject to other legal requirements. The matter emphasizes harmonious application of specific and general provisions and affirms the primacy of the 57(aa) offence for starch adulteration in toddy.
BAIL APPL. NOs. 3062 & 3077 OF 2023 These bail applications arise from Crime No.526/2023 of Kondungallur Police Station, Thrissur district, under Sections 406, 465, 420, 120-B r/w 34 IPC. Petitioners/accused in BA 3062/2023 are Babu (60) and Ashokan Pillai (51) along with other co-accused; BA 3077/2023 concerns the 5th accused, Jaleel (52). The prosecution alleges that the accused, in collusion, procured a sale deed of a 6-cent property by showing a forged encumbrance certificate, manipulating the liability to Rs. 4.25 lakh while the total liability later surfaced as Rs. 19.5 lakh, resulting in a loss to the defacto complainant of Rs. 15.25 lakh. The 6th accused in the same case had already been granted bail by this Court (BA 3641/2023) on 21.06.2023. The petitions were heard after interim orders restraining arrest; the State contends custodial interrogation is necessary due to the seriousness of offences. The court, applying the bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, cites Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement to permit release on bail with conditions. The court ultimately allows both bail applications, directing the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; if arrest is proposed, they will be released on bail on bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; they shall not leave India, shall cooperate, and breach may cancel bail.
This writ petition, WP(C) No. 20823 of 2023, filed by M/S Nayampadam Granites, represented by its proprietor Dr. Abraham Sebastian, seeks a declaration that it is entitled to renewal of its quarry license under Rule 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996 (Trade Rules). The petitioner had obtained several licenses and permissions for quarrying granite from land in Keralassery Village, including environmental clearance, explosives license, and consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board. The Panchayat issued a license for 11.01.2023 to 31.03.2023 and the renewal application, filed on 15.03.2023, remained undecided beyond 30 days, leading the petitioner to contend a deemed renewal under Section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. In May 2023 the Panchayat communicated plans for a joint inspection with the Pollution Control Board and Mining & Geology Dept to address local concerns, stating renewal would be considered after the report. The court scrutinizes the 2017 amendment to Rule 10, emphasizing that renewal is intended to be automatic to avoid business disruption and harassment. Relying on Anish Abraham, the Malabar Granites line of cases, and later Madhulal M.G. and Ankita Sinha, the court holds that no negative report defeats renewal in the absence of mandatory conditions. The judgment ultimately declares renewal under Rule 10 and directs the Panchayat to issue the renewed license within 15 days.
This High Court of Kerala, in a July 2023 order by Justice Gopinath P., dismisses a review petition (RP No. 654 of 2023) filed by K.K. Muraleedharan, a former President of Kudayathoor Service Co-Operative Bank, challenging the judgment in WP(C) No.18405 of 2023 dated 8 June 2023. The writ petition directed the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Idukki) to consider Ext.P3 representation under the law. The review petitioner contends the writ petition was a collusive exercise and an abuse of process, asserting there was no cause of action for mandamus to compel consideration of Ext.P3, which mirroring the earlier complaint that triggered an enquiry under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. It is argued that none of the affected parties were impleaded in the writ petition and that no locus standi exists for the reviewer. The writ petitioner also relies on Sub Rule (4) of Rule 16 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, which allows action after hearing affected parties. The Government Pleader supports dismissal of the review petition as not maintainable; the court also notes that Ext.P3 was filed in December 2022 and mandamus was warranted given the earlier proceedings. Ultimately, the court holds that the review petition is not maintainable (or, if considered, the grounds are untenable) and dismisses it, reaffirming that Rule 16(4) contemplates hearing affected parties before action.”
CRL.A Nos. 86/06, 193/06 & 1796/07 This High Court of Kerala division bench comprising K. Balakrishnan Nair and P. Bhavadasan, JJ, heard Crl.A Nos. 86 of 2006 (by the first accused), 193 of 2006 (second accused) and 1796 of 2007 (State’s appeal for enhanced punishment). The case concerns a gruesome murder attributed to the guardian of law and four accomplices. Praveen, the deceased, disappeared on 15 February 2005; subsequent police work linked accused Nos. 1 and 2 to his murder, and accused Nos. 3–5 were also tried. The investigation produced multiple recovered body parts (legs, torso, head) identified as Praveen, and DNA analysis from Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology and later Chennai Forensic Laboratory matched to the deceased. The trial court convicted both accused Nos. 1 and 2 under IPC sections including 302/120B, 364/120B, 201/120B and 466, 471, with life imprisonment and fines; other charges were largely acquitted. The State sought capital punishment in 1796/07, arguing the brutality and role of a police officer warranted extreme punishment. The High Court underscored the careful evaluation required in circumstantial cases: every link must point to guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with innocence ruled out. It rejected the defence challenges to body-part identity, DNA chain-of-custody and witness credibility; no universal doctrine of “falsus in uno” governed the proceedings. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed; convictions and life sentences were upheld; the State’s capital-punishment plea was rejected.
This writ petition, filed by M. T. Mani, a 65-year-old retired RBI Manager, seeks to quash paragraphs 3 of Exhibit P16 (RBI Administration Circular No. 1 dated 14.09.2020) and paragraphs 4(vi) and 4(vii) of Exhibit P16A (RBI circular dated 18.09.2020), and to direct the first respondent to grant him pension with all benefits. Mani joined RBI in 1981 and retired on 30.11.2014. The RBI Staff Regulations were framed under the RBI Act, 1934, with the Pension Regulations of 1990 and amendments thereafter. The scheme originally offered Contributory Provident Fund and a Pension Scheme, with several options to join the pension scheme after 1990. Mani, a CPF optee, did not join the pension scheme, while the 2012 amendment and subsequent circulars remained silent on his case. Parliament committees pressed for another chance to retirees to join the scheme, but MOF and RBI maintained that no further options would be given. Ext. P15 and Ext. P16 were issued in 2020 allowing a reoption on repayment of CPF with 3% interest, making pension payable from 01.07.2020. Mani has been granted pension from that date, and his grievance is that pension should have been granted from his retirement date. The learned judge held that where clear options existed and were not availed, the petitioner cannot be entitled to pension from the date of retirement; the petition was dismissed.
Mat.Appeal No.479 of 2019 This matrimonial appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, arises from a Family Court judgment in O.P. No. 700 of 2014 (Nedumangad) and pertains to a property dispute between Yamuna A.G. and D. Sasi, including declaration of title to 53 cents of land and a building, injunction, and recovery of gold and money. Marriage between the parties took place on 5 August 1991, with 12 sovereigns of gold and Rs. 20,000 given at the time of marriage. At marriage, a settlement deed (Ext. A2, dated 31 July 1991) transferring 75 cents of property from the appellant’s mother in favour of both spouses was executed; the respondent is claimed to have contributed funds for improvements and construction. The Family Court held that the respondent was a co-owner of the petition schedule property and that the building was financed with his money, rejecting the appellant’s case that Ext. A2 was a pre-marriage settlement benefiting the appellant alone. The appellate court examined the evidence, including sale deeds (Exts. P36, P37) and accounts, and relied on authorities such as Rani v. Sasidharan to interpret Ext. A2, ultimately concluding that Ext. A2 enured to co-ownership and upholding the Family Court’s findings. The High Court dismisses Yamuna’s appeal, confirming the co-ownership and rejecting the reliefs sought by the appellant.
This Arbitration Request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is filed by FlemingO Dutyfree Shop Pvt. Ltd. (the petitioner) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from Annexure A1 Concession Agreement dated 22-04-2016 with Airports Authority of India (AAI). The petitioner contends that Clause 22 of the agreement requires all disputes to be referred to arbitration, and that the respondents’ stance that the disputes are non-arbitrable under the Airports Authority of India Act is a matter to be decided by the arbitrator under Section 16. The respondents counter that the disputes are not arbitrable and insist that Clause 22.2.4 makes furnishing a bank guarantee a precondition to invoking arbitration. The petitioner argues that the bank guarantee is not a condition precedent to invocation, and that post-2016 amendments to the Act require disregarding such preconditions (citing Lite Bite Foods Pvt Ltd v AAI). The court holds that the arbitration clause is independent and that arbitrability will be decided by the arbitrator under Section 16. It appoints Justice C.N. Ramachandran Nair as the sole arbitrator, directs disclosure, fixes costs to be shared, and orders appearance on 20-01-2022, thereby enabling the arbitration to proceed. The decision relies on NN Global Mercantile and Lite Bite Foods to support the independence of the arbitration clause and disregard of preconditions to invocation.
WP(C) Nos.13145 & 20412 of 2021 Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC), a national R&D organization under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, challenged actions of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) in a software development project. CDAC submitted a project proposal and KSRTC issued a Letter of Intent (Ext.P2) and a work order (Ext.P4) upon acceptance. The contract contemplated mobilisation advances of 30% of the project cost against bank guarantees (Exts.P7, P8). CDAC furnished the guarantees and commenced work; however KSRTC refused to release mobilization and, citing concerns about progress and quality, cancelled the work order (Ext.P12) after warning. Thereafter, KSRTC invoked the bank guarantees (29.06.2021) allegedly to recover expenditures claimed to have been incurred by CDAC, including data furnished for the project. CDAC sought a direction to refrain from invocation and to return the guarantees, claiming that cancellation was unjust and that the petitioner had expended substantial sums. KSRTC contended that disputes were subject to arbitration and writ petitions were not maintainable. The court, while noting arbitration provisions, held that public authorities must act fairly and reasonably, citing jurisprudence that supports court intervention where authorities act unfairly. It directed KSRTC to return the bank guarantees and left the remaining disputes to be resolved under the work order’s arbitration mechanism.
This MACA 880/2015 from Kerala High Court concerns a fatal motor-vehicle accident dated 30 November 2007 involving a car (driver deceased) and a tanker lorry, with insurers The New India Assurance Co Ltd and National Insurance Co Ltd contesting both liability and quantum. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, apportioned liability equally between the two drivers and awarded Rs 6,99,600 with 7.5% interest, to be deposited in equal shares by the insurers. The appellants, legal heirs of Vijayakumar, sought enhancement on grounds including the deceased’s actual income. The petition relied on Exts showing the deceased worked as a driver abroad (UAE) and had a valid UAE license and visa; however, evidence regarding salary was not conclusively attested. The High Court undertook a detailed review: noting the lack of proper attestation for Ext.A17, yet corroborating the abroad employment through passport and UAE license; applying Manusha Sreekumar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the Kerala government wage notification to fix a probable Indian monthly income of Rs.11,600 for 2007 (with an adjustment to Rs.15,600 for 2015 data per the fair-wages doctrine). It held the mother as the sole dependent for dependency calculations (50% deduction for future expenses), awarded Rs.15,000 for loss of estate (per Pranay Sethi), and corrected head-by-head entitlements including reduction in love-and-affection and funeral expenses per Satinder Kaur. The appeal was allowed and the award modified by an additional sum of Rs.11,37,320, to be deposited in equal shares within three months. The judgment later underwent IA 1/2024 modifications adjusting several figures.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal misc. case (Crl.M.C. No. 4993 of 2023) filed under Section 482 CrPC by accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.64/2020 of the Ernakulam Excise Range. The petition challenges a final report (Annexure-A1) which charges the petitioners under Sections 57(aa) and 56(b) of the Abkari Act, arising from the detection of toddy with starch at a toddy shop. Section 57(aa), introduced in 2018, targets the specific violation of adding starch to toddy, while Section 56(b) is a general provision punishing willful breaches of license conditions. The petition argued that both provisions cannot be invoked simultaneously; the general provision (56(b)) should not be invoked where a specific provision (57(aa)) exists, citing Ani & Another v. State of Kerala & Another (2021(6) KHC 176). The court examined Annexure-A2 (Ani) and a similar Annexure in Annexure-A2, and held that continuation of the prosecution under Section 56(b) when 57(aa) is present is not permissible. Consequently, the court allowed the Crl.M.C. in part and quashed the 56(b) charge in Annexure-A1, while maintaining the 57(aa) charge. The petitioners are represented by Advs. Reshma E., O. Mincy, and Anakha Krishna; Respondents include the State’s Public Prosecutor and Excise officials. The judgment emphasizes the primacy of specific provisions over general ones and cites Ani (2021) as controlling authority.
Cont.Case(C)No.910 of 2023 This is a contempt petition filed in Cont.Case(C) No. 910 of 2023 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, challenging alleged willful disobedience of directions issued by this Court on 29.08.2022 in W.P.(C) No.14347 of 2021 and connected matters. The writ petitions had directed the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, to nominate a competent officer to reconsider objections to the Attingal Bypass alignment from CH: 530+800 to CH: 530+900, after affording personal hearing to the petitioners and the concerned NHAI and DPR officers, with both sides allowed to submit written submissions. The respondents, through an affidavit filed by the Project Director, NHAI, contended that a committee examined the grievances relating to the Attingal bypass and found some genuineness in concerns about temple structures; it recommended modifying the project by terminating a portion of the service road and adding two vehicular underpasses, with a revised acquisition plan communicated to authorities. The petitioners argued that compliance with the Court’s directions was incomplete and that Annexure R1(a) did not adequately address their objections. Citing Valsala Kumari Devi M. v. B. Srinivas I.A.S. (2018 (5) KHC 59), the Court held that contempt proceedings require only a showing of no deliberate or wilful disobedience and need not micromanage compliance, closing the petition as no contempt was found, while leaving remedies available in appropriate proceedings for any further grievance.
D.B.P.No.40 of 2016; W.P.(C) Nos.17613/2018, 17978/2018, 18711/2019 Valanjambalam Devi Temple, a prominent temple in Ernakulam, is managed by the Cochin Devaswom Board. The temple complex includes a ground-floor shopping complex with several licensees who occupied rooms and conducted various businesses. In 2013, the Board resolved to demolish and reconstruct the building due to dilapidation and to utilize land more profitably for devotees. Licensees were evicted and notices issued, but protests were raised by devotees alleging delays. The Ombudsman’s reports and representations from licensees prompted the Board to consider preserving the building by repairs rather than immediate demolition, and a feasibility assessment by Yesoram Constructions led to a shift in approach. Subsequently, Ext.P7 (20.04.2018) and related orders halted eviction steps. Petitions challenged these actions, culminating in parallel writ petitions. The Court examined actions under the Land Conservancy Act, 1957, and the Board’s duty as a trustee to generate income from temple properties, citing decisions that emphasize prudent business-like management of Devaswom assets. In 2023, the Court approved an order dated 06.01.2023, keeping demolition in abeyance and directing further steps. The Court ultimately disposed of the DBP and all connected WP(C)s with directions to collect licence fees in accordance with established precedents and market rent, finding no malafide in the Board’s actions.
WA Nos.1250/2014; 1295/2014; 1296/2014; 1538/2014; 1539/2014; 1728/2014; 1729/2014; 1818/2014; 1819/2014; 170/2015 This batch of writ appeals addresses whether tax deduction at source under Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act, 1963 is applicable to compensation paid in land acquisition for the Kochi Metro Rail Project where settlements were reached by negotiation after statutory proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had begun. The learned Single Judge had held that 194LA cannot be invoked where compensation is paid under negotiated settlements and thus directed non-deduction of tax at source. The appellants, Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), contended that once the acquisition process is initiated, the matter falls under compulsory acquisition and 194LA applies to any payment made as compensation or consideration, including negotiated settlements; reliance was placed on Balakrishnan v. Union of India (2017) 3 SCC 634, which held that the acquisition remains compulsory despite negotiations. The Supreme Court of Balakrishnan overruled the earlier Info Park Kerala decision, clarifying the tax consequences in such cases. On these appeals, the Kerala High Court held that Section 194LA applies to payments arising from compulsory acquisition even if settlements are negotiated; it set aside the trial court’s view and disposed of the appeals in favor of the Revenue, directing tax deduction and remittance where already deducted, and clarifying the position for the connected cases.
The petitioner, Tony @ Thomas, was convicted in Sessions Case No. 460 of 2012 for offences under sections 450, 394 and 302 IPC, resulting in life imprisonment under section 302 IPC and 10-year term sentences for sections 450 and 394. The Sessions Court additionally directed that the life imprisonment be without remission for 20 years, a direction relied upon by the Sessions Court based on Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka. The High Court, in appeal, confirmed the conviction and the sentence but interfered with the 20-year non-remission directive, noting that the Sessions Judge had no power to impose such a direction as per Union of India v. V. Sriharan. The core issue before the Kerala High Court was whether the sentences should run concurrently or consecutively, particularly when the judgment did not explicitly direct one way or the other. The Court rejected a literal application of Annexure C (the Single Judge’s view) on the merger doctrine, citing Kunhayammed & Ors v. State of Kerala and Khoday Distilleries Ltd v Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd to emphasize that subordinate forum decisions merge into appellate decisions. The bench analyzed precedents including Ranjith Singh (I) and Ranjit Singh, and clarified that, in cases with life plus term sentences in the same trial, life sentences cannot be directed to run consecutively, and ordering remission can alter the balance only if applicable to all sentences. Consequently, finding no remission order and no basis to invoke 482 CrPC, the court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition. The order confirms that the life sentence and term sentences in this case are to be treated as concurrent in the absence of a directions to the contrary, and the petition is dismissed on merits.
The Kerala High Court, in CrL.MC No. 2919 of 2023, heard on 5 June 2023, invokes its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings arising from CC No.1334/2016 (JMFC-III, Thiruvananthapuram). The petitioner, Sibichandran, was charged with offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC for alleged assault on 11 August 2016, resulting in injuries to the 2nd respondent/complainant. The prosecution’s case is that the parties have settled their disputes amicably, supported by Annexure-3 affidavit of the 2nd respondent, and the investigating officer was directed to verify the genuineness of the settlement and any antecedents. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but conceded the lack of prior criminal antecedents and absence of enduring grievances by the complainant. The court examined the governing law, citing State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and other decisions (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Shambhu Kewat, Deepak, Manish, Kamath, Rajveer Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, Kalyan Singh, Dhruv Gurjar) to outline when 482 power may be exercised: predominantly civil/private character, non-compoundable offences, but not for heinous or public offences, or where public interest requires continued proceedings. Applying these principles and weighing factors such as gravity of the offence, injuries, circumstances, and the amicable settlement, the court concluded the quashing would not adversely impact society and would promote ends of justice. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the Final Report (Crime No.1009/2016) and related proceedings in CC No.1334/2016 were quashed.
This bail application under section 438 CrPC involves four accused Vishnu M Nair, Binu K Menon, Jishnu, and Aravindan in Crime No.1392/2020 of Anthikkad Police Station, Thrissur. The respondents are the State of Kerala and Manisha R Nair, the private defacto complainant. The Private Complaint, alleging fraud and conspiracy under sections 420, 465, 468 and 120-B read with 34 IPC, was registered on the basis of certain allegations and forwarded under section 156(3) CrPC for investigation. The prosecution contends that the accused induced the complainant by falsely claiming the 1st petitioner worked for British Airways and could secure employment for the 2nd respondent; an engagement ceremony occurred on 25.01.2020 and matrimonial plans were later abandoned, prompting the complaint. The petitioners contend that custodial interrogation is not necessary; they are ready to cooperate with investigation and may surrender for interrogation within a time frame, after which they can be released on bail. The court cites the Supreme Court’s Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement to reinforce that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Accordingly, the court grants bail to all petitioners with conditions: appearance before the IO within ten days; bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties; ongoing cooperation; prohibition on leaving India without court permission; no commission of similar offences; and potential cancellation of bail for violations. The order directs continued investigation and release on bail.
