Mohammed Kutty, the original appellant, was injured in a road accident on 18.07.2008 when a vehicle struck him while he walked on the road. He filed OP(MV) No.166/2009 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, seeking Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation, which the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,02,950. During the pendency, the appellant died and his legal heirs were brought on record as additional appellants. The appeal challenges the adequacy of the compensation and raises objections to the Tribunal’s fixation of notional income and disability. Counsel for the appellants argued that the deceased was working as a ‘Coolie’ earning about Rs. 6,000 per month; the Tribunal adopted a meagre Rs. 2,000 as notional income. Relying on Ramachandrappa, the minimum notional income for a 2008 cooling labourer should be Rs. 6,500, and this figure should have been adopted for computation of losses. The medical evidence showed severe injuries including multiple fractures and long hospitalization, supporting enhanced compensation under Pain and Suffering, Loss of Amenities, Bystander’s Expenses and Extra Nourishment. The Insurance Company contended that the award was proper given 2008 standards. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, adopting the Ramachandrappa principle, increasing several heads of compensation, and directing payment with interest and costs, apportioned among the legal heirs, with 222 days’ delay excluded from interest.”
The petitioner, Shilpa Nair, a social activist, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging non-payment and lack of enhancement of the annuity on lands vested in the Government concerning Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple. The prayer sought a mandamus to ensure payment of pending annuity since 2017 and to revise the annuity upwards by 25% every four years to reflect inflation, with 12% interest for delayed payments, within a timeframe to be fixed by the court. The Court traced the statutory framework governing annuity: the Sree Pandaravaka Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1971, which fixes an annuity of Rs.58,500 per year under Section 6(1)-(2), and the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, with its provisions for revision (Section 67A) and related sections. The respondents contended that annuity is governed by the 1971 Act and that enhancement would require legislative amendment; they argued the doctrine of separation of powers and that the judiciary cannot compel legislation. The High Court examined the interplay between a special statute (1971 Act) and the general law (1963 Act), applying the parens patriae doctrine and harmonious construction. It held that enhancement cannot be ordered by judicial direction; any modification must come via amendment to the statute. The writ petition was dismissed with no costs. The decision reaffirms the supremacy of the Legislature to decide legislative changes and the limited role of the judiciary in forcing amendments to special statutes.
This is a Kerala High Court Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA 476/2015) arising from an award under OP(MV) No. 438/2009 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda. The appellant, Thakappan, was severely injured when a vehicle struck him on 30.11.2008. He has been left in a vegetative state requiring lifelong assistance for basic bodily functions, including catheterization and hygiene, and needs round-the-clock care. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,01,440 against a claim of about Rs. 30.27 lakh, which the appellant challenges as grossly inadequate. The appellant relies on Ext.A1 (Disability Certificate) and Ext.A13 (Medical Board assessment) to argue for substantial enhancements under heads such as Pain and Suffering, Loss of Amenities, Loss of Earning Power, and Bystander’s/Attender’s Expenses. The Insurance Company contends the Tribunal’s computation was sound, noting the accident occurred in 2011 and relying on the evidence presented. The High Court, after examining medical records and disability certificates, finds the disability to be complete and permanent in practical terms, and concludes that compensation must be substantially increased to reflect ongoing care costs and loss to life, invoking precedents on notional income, attendant care, and multiplier. The appeal is partly allowed, with detailed adjustments to several heads of compensation and interest, while other findings remain intact.
Mat.Appeal No.172/2014 & 309/2015 The present matter combines Mat.Appeal No.172/2014 and RPFC No.309/2015 arising from matrimonial disputes between Jose T. and Anitha S. The marriage, solemnized on 18.10.2000, produced two children, with the elder staying with the husband and the younger with the wife. The husband’s case is that Anitha was quarrelsome from the outset, suspected him of relations with other women including his brother’s wife, and refused to participate in family duties or attend his mother’s funeral, ultimately driving the couple to live separately from 2004 onward. He filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in 2007, which was later withdrawn, and sought a divorce. The wife countered that the husband subjected her to cruelty and she denied the specific allegations of illicit relationships; she claimed to be willing to reside with him but endured coercive conduct. She also pursued maintenance in MC No.138 of 2013 on grounds of lack of income and dependency, alleging the husband earned around ₹30,000 per month. The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition, finding no proven cruelty, while granting limited maintenance. The High Court, in a consolidated hearing, found irretrievable breakdown of the marriage after more than 20 years of separation and allowed the appeal, ordering dissolution by divorce and partially allowing the maintenance petition, with enhanced maintenance of ₹2,500 per month from MC No.138/2013 until 31.03.2025 and ₹3,000 thereafter, citing Shilpa Sailesh and Rajib Kumar to support divorce as a remedy in such circumstances.
Cont.Case (C) No.1010 of 2020 This Contempt of Court petition, filed by petitioners 1–3, 5 and 6 in W.P.(C) No.34766/2016, Challenges alleged willful disobedience of directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment dated 12.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No.34766/2016 and connected matters, concerning pension entitlements under the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO). The Supreme Court’s detailed judgment dated 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8143–44 of 2022 and connected matters held the G.S.R. 609(E) notification (2014) legal and valid and directed readjustments and clarifications in the pension scheme, including extension of options under the post‑amendment scheme and protection of existing rights under pre‑amendment provisions. The High Court, citing the Apex Court’s directives, observed that the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by the EPFO and that the authorities must implement the directions. It noted that the entitlement is to be determined in light of the amended scheme and the relevant paragraphs (notably paragraph 11(3) as before and paragraph 11(4) post‑amendment). In view of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Contempt Case is closed, without prejudice to EPFO’s right to reconsider the petitioners’ entitlement for higher pension in accordance with law. The bench comprised Anil K. Narendran, J., and G. Girish, J.
BAIL APPL. NOS. 4606 OF 2025 AND 4625 OF 2025 The petitioner, Sanjay, aged 47 years, is the subject of two connected bail applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) concerning Crime Nos. 38/2025 and 315/2025 registered at Kottayam West Police Station, alleging large-scale emigration-fraud involving promises of jobs in the US and UK, with non-return of money. The prosecution relies on serious offences under BNS 2023 (318(4), 3(5)) and IPC 420, along with Emigration Act sections 10 and 24. The petitioner has been in custody since 25.02.2025 and 11.03.2025, prompting the court to weigh bail against the gravity of the charges. The High Court, applying the well-settled maxim that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, cites jurisdictional authorities (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 to justify conditional bail. After considering the facts, the court allows bail with stringent conditions, including a Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, cooperation with investigation, and no travel abroad without court permission. The order reiterates the principle that bail is the norm and that violations may lead to cancellation of bail, while observations are limited to the bail petition’s disposition.
MACA Nos.1193/2013 & 1320/2013 This High Court judgment arises from two Motor Accidents Claims Appeals (MACAs), MACA No.1193/2013 and MACA No.1320/2013, challenging awards made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, in O.P.(M.V) Nos.2255/2005 and 2095/2005, both dated 13.09.2012. In the tribunal, the bus involved struck a jeep carrying the injured Roopesh and, in the other petition, the death of Mr. Reji led to claims by his legal representatives. The Tribunal held the bus driver negligent and awarded ₹7,59,000 to the injured Roopesh (in 2255/2005) and ₹2,40,200 to the legal representatives of Reji (in 2095/2005), directing the insurer to deposit the sums with 8% interest. The appellants argued that the deduction for personal expenses, the monthly income, and conventional heads (funeral expenses, loss of estate) were understated, and that future prospects should be enhanced following the Supreme Court’s Pranay Sethi doctrine (50% addition for future prospects). The respondents, including the insurer, largely contested the quantum but admitted coverage. The High Court, applying the Pranay Sethi framework, re-fixes income, re-calculates dependency using a higher multiplier, increases several heads (loss of consortium, damages for clothing, pain and suffering, etc.), and deducts certain sums. The result is a revised award with liability on the insurer and specific payment amounts with interest, to be made within two months of certified copy, in line with Circular No.03/2019."
BAIL APPL. NO.4626 OF 2025 Rajesh, the petitioner, seeks bail in Crime No. 175/2025 of Peechi Police Station, Thrissur, under sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109, 296(b), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The petitioner was arrested on 18.02.2025 and is in custody. The prosecution alleges that on 14.02.2025 he assaulted the de facto complainant with an iron rod, criminally intimidated the victim, and used obscene language. The bail application was admitted on 07.04.2025 before Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to comply with stringent conditions and that indefinite incarceration is unwarranted, especially since no criminal antecedents are reported for the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but conceded that no antecedents were alleged as per the IO’s report. The court highlighted the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception and relied on Supreme Court and Kerala High Court authorities, including 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. Ultimately, the court allowed bail with conditions: bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, restriction on leaving India, and prohibition on committing similar offences, with observations limited to deciding this bail petition.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4435 OF 2025 This Bail Application, B.A. No. 4435 of 2025, concerns Binu, the accused in Crime No. 345/2025 of Anchal Police Station, Kollam. The offences alleged under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhhita (BNSS) include sections 126(2), 115(2), 132, 121(1), 121(2), 296(b) and 351(2), arising from an incident on 16.03.2025 in which the petitioner allegedly uttered obscene words to Ashna Beegum and assaulted the complainant, causing a fracture to the police officer. The petitioner has been in custody since 16.03.2025. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The court acknowledges that the alleged offences are grave, but reiterates the well-established principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception; indefinite detention is unnecessary if proper conditions are imposed. Citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court emphasizes that the grant of bail must be considered in light of the statute and the right to a fair trial. The court also cites Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala, applying its principle to this case. Accordingly, it grants bail on certain stringent conditions, including a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, regular appearance before the IO, non-leave of the country, prohibition from similar offences, and weekly IO appearances until final report. The decision balances public interest with the accused’s liberty.
CRL.R.P Nos. 3007/2011 & 3008/2011 Raju J. Vylattu, the revision petitioner, challenges a common conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arising from two trials that culminated in concurrent findings of guilt and sentences, confirmed by the appellate court with modified substantive sentences. The petitions arise from the trial court’s two ST Nos. 1125/2005 and 1126/2005 (Kochi), and the corresponding appellate judgments in CRA Nos. 685/2010 and 687/2010. The prosecution alleges that the accused borrowed Rs. 10 lakh and issued cheques (Exts. P2, P6) dishonoured for insufficiency of funds (Exts. P3, P7). The statutory notices were issued (Exts. P5, P9) but were returned as unclaimed, and the accused allegedly defaulted on payment. A central issue before the High Court is whether the trial court’s failure to question the accused under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC vitiates the proceedings. The petitioner relies on Supreme Court jurisprudence emphasizing the right to be heard under 313(1)(b) and the potential for miscarriage of justice if the inquiry is defective, citing Janak Yadav, Jai Dev, Nar Singh, Basavaraj R. Patil, Pareira and others; Razak Mether is also referenced. The State contends non-compliance does not automatically vitiate proceedings and that prejudice must be shown. The Kerala High Court ultimately holds that failure to examine under 313(1)(b) constitutes miscarriage of justice and allows a remedy by remitting the matter to the trial court to examine under 313(1)(b) and decide afresh from that stage, directing appearance on a specified date and expeditious disposal.
WP(C) Nos. 12411/2022 and 5456/2022 Two writ petitions, WP(C) Nos. 12411/2022 and 5456/2022, raise enforcement and challenge of terms arising from a cooperative arbitration compromise. The petitioner-bank and the former secretary/petitioner were involved in an ARC (Arbitration Court) proceeding relating to service benefits and pay benefits. The compromise petition (Ext. P3), approved by the Arbitration Court and disposed of as Ext. P4 on 14.02.2017, envisaged several perks for the employee, including regularisation of pay, promotion to Junior Clerk, enrollment in the Co-operative Employees Pension Board, leave surrender, bonus, and increments, along with promotion to the post of Secretary from 01.07.2008 and arrears of service benefits. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued Ext. P13 on 15.11.2021 directing the Society to grant some benefits under the compromise, but with caveats about those terms having no legal backing. The Society moved to set aside the ARC award alleging fraud; IA Nos. 1/2021 and 2/2021 were dismissed in ARC, and the Society challenged these orders in WP(C) 5456/2022. The court held Ext. P13 could not be treated as an execution order under Section 76 read with Rule 74, given the non-compliance with those provisions. It quashed Exts. P13, P16 and P17 and directed the Arbitration Court to reconsider IA Nos. 1/2021 and 2/2021, with a fresh decision within a month, and allowed the writ petitions in part, permitting execution of the award in accordance with law.
Sudhakaran S/o Narayana Pillai, the appellant, challenged a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in respect of injuries from a collision on 11 August 2005. The Tribunal held the autorickshaw driver negligent and the insurer liable, directing payment of Rs 1,13,310 plus interest and permitting recovery from the owner due to the driver lacking a valid license. The appellant, then aged 52 and employed as a head master, argued that the monthly income used by the Tribunal for calculating compensation was too low (Rs 4,000) and that the tribunal’s use of a ‘split multiplier’ for disability was unwarranted, since he continued in service after the accident. He contended that his pre‑accident income was Rs 14,035 and that for post‑retirement compensation, at least 50% of that income should be considered, a position later endorsed by Raju Sebastian v United India Insurance Company. The court found there was no actual loss of earning power during service and thus corrected the post‑retirement calculation, while also increasing the disability percentage from 4% to 5% per Ext. A12. It enhanced compensation for pain and suffering by Rs 11,000 and for loss of amenities by Rs 11,000, and recalculated the actual loss of earnings for 52 days to Rs 28,297. The appeal is allowed; the award is modified, and the revised amount must be deposited within three months.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by the petitioners (Accused Nos. 1 and 3: Chacko and Johnson) before the Kerala High Court, challenging the proceeding in CC No.1428/2015 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class III, Thrissur, arising from FIR No.729/2015 at Ollur Police Station. The accused are charged with offences under sections 447, 323, 324, 294(b) and 506(i) read with section 34 IPC; Accused Nos. 2 and 4 are stated to be deceased. The prosecution alleges trespass into a poultry farm, assault, and criminal intimidation in a dispute with the de facto complainant, Benny S/o Chacko. The petition contends that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution, supported by an affidavit. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on settlement but concedes there are no other serious crimes against the petitioners. The High Court surveys the law under Section 482 CrPC, citing State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and the decisions in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, to hold that quashing may be permissible where the offences are largely private in nature, the civil character predominates, and the dispute is wholly resolved. It also acknowledges that offences like 307 IPC and Arms Act are not to be quashed. On weighing the gravity of offences, lack of ongoing grievances, and the genuine settlement, the court concludes that quashing would serve ends of justice. The petition is allowed and the final report and all further proceedings in CC No.1428/2015 are quashed.
This writ petition challenges the non-regularization/approval of appointments under the 4% reservation for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) in aided schools administered by the Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Mananthavady, under the Kerala Education Act and Rules. The petitioner asserts that the 4% PwD reservation applies to all appointments and that Exts. P3–P9 demonstrate compliance by earmarking posts across categories—5 LPST, 11 UPST, one JLT (Sanskrit), 2 HST (Hindi), and HSST posts. However, approvals for other regular posts under the Management have stalled due to lack of induction for physically disabled candidates. The government issued Exts. P10 (order dated 04.03.2025) and P11 (order dated 17.03.2025) affecting NSS Management, but the petitioner contends that Exts. P10–P11 should apply to similarly situated management appointments, not only NSS-managed schools. Citing Central Finance and Investments v. Secretary, Kothamangalam Municipality (2021) and Somukuttan Nair v. State of Kerala (1997), the petitioner argues that where higher court decisions declare benefits or directions, the government cannot withhold them. The court heard both sides; recognising Ext. P13 on binding principles and considering Ext. P15 representation, the petition is disposed of by directing the State to re‑examine the matter and decide within four months, in light of the exhibits supporting the case.
This Regular Second Appeal, filed under section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 1 CPC, arises from a suit O.S. No. 1858/2007 before the First Additional Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram, where Abdul Azeez, the plaintiff, claimed damages for loss of his motorcycle KL-01/AQ 5692, entrusted to the 2nd defendant for a fourth free service. The vehicle was allegedly stolen while in the custody of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff contends the 2nd defendant failed to exercise due care, entitling him to compensation. The defendants resist, arguing the bike was recovered by Nemom police and the suit is tainted by collusion between the plaintiff and a friend. The trial court decreed Rs. 70,289 with 6% interest. On appeal, the Sub Court modified the decree, directing interim/final custody through court/police with delivery to the plaintiff subject to conditions, and costs in the appeal were to be borne by the parties. The court noted that the police had recovered the vehicle and that the proper remedy was release under the CrPC and related insurance. The High Court, noting the absence of a substantial question of law, dismissed admission for the second appeal. The final outcome: the appeal is dismissed without being admitted. The matter centers on whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages or a remedy through criminal/insurance channels, given recovery of the vehicle by police.
This is a writ appeal filed by a large group of petitioners challenging the Kerala State Electricity Board’s policy restricting commutation of pension at the revised rate to employees who retired on or after 1 April 2021, despite a pay revision effective from 1 July 2018. The petitioners, who retired between 2018 and 2021, had already received arrears of pay and pension revision. Ext. P2 sanctioned the revised pay, and pension revision followed, but Ext. P3 fixed a cut-off date for commutation. The petitioners contend discrimination and rely on Appendix X of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) to argue for retrospective entitlement to commutation at the revised rate. The respondents counter that commutation is a prerogative policy decision of the employer, and administrative acts in this sphere are not ordinarily amenable to writ intervention, especially in the absence of glaring discrimination. The learned single Judge had relied on a 2017 decision (W.P.(C) No. 4315 of 2017) and on Kerala State Electricity Board v. Raghukumar (2012 (1) KLT 199) to justify the policy choice. The High Court agrees that policy decisions of this nature are discretionary and withstand scrutiny in writ jurisdiction unless there is blatant discrimination, and ultimately dismisses the writ appeal.
Bail Appl. No. 3047 of 2022 Two petitioners, Shajeer P.S. alias Saddam and Abdul Muthalib K.H., seek bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 254/2022 of Kaipamangalam Police Station, Thrissur. They are charged with offences including sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 308, read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges that on 28.03.2022 the petitioners restrained the complainant and caused serious injuries. This bail petition, pending since 2022, comes after an earlier order dated 19.04.2022 directing that the petitioners shall not be arrested remains in force, and the prosecution concedes that the investigation is not yet complete. The petitioners argue that others charged in the case have been granted bail, the investigation is advancing, and custodial interrogation is unnecessary. The respondents, while acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, contend that the petitioners are involved in other cases and that the ongoing investigation warrants restraint on bail. The Court reiterates the bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement to emphasize fair trial. On this basis, the Court allows the bail petition with directions: the petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; if arrest is contemplated, they shall be released on bail on bonds of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each; they must not leave the country and must not commit similar offences; breach may cancel bail.
WA Nos.676/2020, 52/2020, 395/2020, 800/2020, 711/2020, 721/2020, 712/2020, 713/2020, 754/2020, 735/2020, 743/2020, 790/2020, 1382/2020, 765/2020, 801/2020, 773/2020, 774/2020, 805/2020, 1391/2020, 1400/2020, 821/2020, 1363/2020, 1377/2020, 823/2020, 1491/2020, 1416/2020, 1381/2020, 802/2020, 803/2020, 859/2020, 873/2020, 871/2020, 883/2020, 3705/2018, 961/2020, 1036/2020, 1112/2020, 1101/2020, 1338/2020, 87/2022, 1206/2020, 11649/2017, 12570/2017, 12619/2017, 12959/2017, 17753/2017, 19310/2017, 20196/2017, 20283/2017, 1718/2020, 21946/2017, 24228/2017, 1705/2020 These batch writ appeals arise from challenges to reassessment/reopening notices under the Kerala VAT Act (KVAT Act) and related VAT/CGST regimes. The Kerala High Court, in a common judgment by a Division Bench (Justices S. V. Bhatti and Basant Balaji), addresses whether Section 42(3) of the KVAT Act, introduced by the Kerala Finance Act 2016 (Act 18/2016), can be read retrospectively to reopen time-barred assessments, and if so, to what extent and with what limits. The core issue is the tension between allowed reassessment under Section 42(3) and the general period of limitation under Section 25 of the KVAT Act, plus the applicability of Rule 58(20) of the KVAT Rules to fix a ‘reasonable period’ for reopening. The court reviews constitutional principles, the legislature’s plenary power to amend retrospectively, and several precedents on retrospective legislation, the duty to preserve documents, and the requirement of expedition in taxation. It rejects the broad, indefinite reopening envisaged by some parties, upholds a cautious interpretation, and ultimately dismisses the writ appeals while disposing of connected matters.
The petitioner, Moon Space Property by NV Private Limited, filed WP(C) No.12778 of 2025 seeking a directive to lift the debit freeze imposed on its bank account No. 1597020000000313 by the 4th respondent bank, Utkarsh Small Finance Bank Limited, allegedly in pursuance of a requisition from the 3rd respondent police authorities. The petitioner contends that the freezing action is illegal and arbitrary, impeding its ability to operate the account. The respondents include the State of Kerala (represented by the Principal Secretary, Home Department), the Kerala Cyber Police Station, the Delhi Shahdara Cyber Crime Police Station, and Utkarsh Small Finance Bank Limited. The matter was heard with submissions from the petitioner’s counsel and the Government Pleader, as well as the bank’s counsel, who stated that the disputed amount is Rs. 2,15,009. The court situates the matter in light of Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826), which directs banks to confine freeze to the amount specified in police orders and seek timely information from police on continuation. It subsequently aligns with Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd, and cites State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen to emphasize timely reporting and related remedies. The judge then issues directions (i) to confine the freeze to the specified amount; (ii) for police to inform banks about continuation; (iii) banks to comply; (iv) liberty to approach the Court if no information is received; (v) police to inform about seizure reporting to Magistrate and a two-month window; (vi) service of judgment to concerned officers. The petition is disposed accordingly by a single-judge bench.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5506 OF 2023 This is the second regular bail application filed by Siddique, the 2nd accused in Crime No. 619/2022 of Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram District, under the NDPS Act. The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, presided by Hon. Justice A. Badharudeen, heard on 17 November 2023. The earlier bail petition (BA 628/2023, dated 21 March 2023) was dismissed. The prosecution alleges the 2nd accused aided the first in trafficking MDMA and was implicated through joint possession, call details, and the accused’s stay at the same lodge. The defense submitted that the 2nd accused had an employer-employee relationship with the 1st accused and that the only materials linking him to the crime are the confessions and call records, which were argued to be insufficient to establish guilt. The court discusses Section 37 of the NDPS Act, clarifying that in cases involving commercial quantity, bail is permissible only if there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the accused is not guilty and he will not misuse bail; these are conjunctive conditions. References to Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari (reasonable grounds meaning more than prima facie), Tofan Singh’s view on inadmissibility of confessions under Section 67, and Mohit Aggarwal’s judgment on circumstantial evidence are cited. Ultimately, the court dismissed the bail application as withdrawn, directing the Special Judge to expedite the trial within six months."
