This writ appeal challenges a Kerala High Court Single Judge’s interim order dated 13 November 2024 in WP(C) No.37556 of 2024, directing KSRTC and associated officers to disburse provident fund (PF) closure dues with statutory interest and to place on record statements regarding TA/DA claims. The petition was filed by Suhanesh Chand K., a retired Special Assistant, seeking mandamus to secure PF closure dues and payment of TA/DA from 03/2022 to 04/2024. The appellants contend the interim order was pronounced on the first listing without a counter affidavit opportunity and that directing disbursement of final relief at this stage constitutes substantive relief, not an interim arrangement, which should be resolved in the main petition. The respondents rely on Ext.P5 (WP(C) No.24403/2023) directing PF dues and staff welfare funds to be disbursed with interest within three months, and argue that interim directions align with those precedents. The court, citing State of Kerala v. Pradeepkumar A.V., and earlier rulings (K. S. Das; Madhu Limaye; Thomas P. T.), clarifies that interim orders cannot grant final relief and that appealability under Section 5(i) depends on whether the order substantially affects rights. The Division Bench allows the appeal, sets aside the impugned order with a Rs.5,000 cost, and leaves the merits to be decided by the Single Judge for early disposal of the writ petition.
MACA Nos.1481 & 1482 of 2012 These two Motor Accident Claims Appeals arise from a common award in O.P. (MV) Nos.506 and 512 of 2008 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, relating to injuries sustained on 15.01.2008 when an ambulance (KL-11F-1415) owned by the first respondent, driven by the insured, collided with a motorcycle on which the appellants were occupants. The Tribunal held the accident due to negligence of the ambulance driver, and though it found policy conditions violated, it directed the insurer to satisfy the awards but granted a right of recovery against the insured. The quantum of compensation was Rs.1,68,290 for the claimant in OP MV 506/2008 and Rs.3,41,750 for the claimant in OP MV 512/2008. The appeals were primarily about quantum and the insurer’s right to recover. The High Court, while dealing with both MACAs, reassessed income and disability for each claimant, applying Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq principles to determine realistic monthly earnings for an ordinary employee (Rs.9,000 as the revised figure in both cases, with a separately sustained disability assessment). In MACA 1482, disability was fixed at 6% (despite Ext.A6 suggesting 9%), leading to an adjusted compensation of Rs.1,16,640 for disability and related heads with additional sums totaling Rs.92,800. In MACA 1481, disability was fixed at 22% and monthly income adjusted to Rs.9,000, resulting in a revised compensation of Rs.4,03,920 with further additions totaling Rs.3,31,912. The appeals were allowed, with the insurer directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest and costs within three months of the judgment. Bench: Single Judge (Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.). Neutral citation: null.
W.P.(C) No. 12643 of 2023 The petitioner, a contractor engaged by the State Public Works Department for the Special Package Non Plan works 2020-21—Improvements (BM & BC) to Vypin-Pallipuram Parallel Road, Ch. 11/000 to 17/000, challenges Exhibit P26, the termination order dated 15.03.2023 issued by the Superintending Engineer, PWD Roads Division, Central Circle, Aluva. The core dispute centers on termination at the petitioner’s risk and cost after a prolonged sequence of delays attributed to public obstruction, Covid-19, shortages of materials, monsoon and floods, and a shift in instructions requiring reporting of intermediate levels after laying the GSB layer. The petitioner contends that intermediate levels were not approved timely due to non-cooperation, and that pandemic-related constraints and material unavailability hindered progress; the petitioner relies on Sections 56 and 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and on Supreme Court judgments to argue that the State and its instrumentalities must observe constitutional guarantees, especially Article 14. The respondents contend that despite extensions the project did not progress; termination was legal under the contract terms. The court reviews whether there is arbitrariness in Exhibit P26, finds that despite opportunities, progress remained lacking and that extensions were granted; thus, the writ petition is dismissed and the termination stands. The decision underscores that contract terms bind the parties and writ court interference is unwarranted where there is no demonstrated illegality in termination.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4551 OF 2025 Jomon, the petitioner in Bail Appl. No. 4551 of 2025, seeks bail in Crime No. 295/2025 of Airoor Police Station under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The FIR alleges a grievous assault on 19.02.2025, where the informant was grabbed by the neck, struck with a knee, and stabbed multiple times with a knife, including injuries near the eye and neck, signifying serious harm. The petitioner had earlier moved BA No. 3098/2025 and the court did not grant bail then; after hearing both sides, the court allowed filing a fresh application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted readiness to adhere to stringent conditions and highlighted the longstanding legal principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, to ensure a fair trial. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and risk to the investigation. The court recognised the gravity but relied on established bail jurisprudence, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Kerala authorities Jalaluddin Khan, Manish Sisodia, and Anzar Azeez to reaffirm that bail should be granted in deserving cases, with appropriate safeguards. Ultimately, the court allowed the bail with conditions: bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO on Mondays at 10:00 AM until final report, restriction from leaving jurisdiction without permission, and prohibition against committing further offences; observations limited to this petition, with cancellation as a remedy for breach.
This bail application concerns Sindhu V. Nair, the 3rd accused in Crime No. 715/2024 of CBCID Kollam (formerly Koipuram Police Station case 447/2024). The petitioner faces offences under sections 409, 420, and 120B read with 34 of the IPC, and under sections 3 read with 21 and 5 read with 23 of the BUDS Act. The prosecution alleges that, while serving as a managing director of the erstwhile PRDS Nidhi Limited (renamed G & G Financiers), she induced the defacto complainant to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs on two occasions with promises of high interest and failed to repay with interest. The petitioner was arrested on 07.02.2025. After hearing the petitioner’s counsel and the Public Prosecutor, the court noted that although the allegations are serious, indefinite detention is unwarranted and that bail is the rule, jail the exception. Relying on authorities including Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and subsequent Kerala authorities such as Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala, the court concluded that bail is warranted with stringent conditions to ensure a fair trial. The order imposes a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, requires appearance before the IO, co-operation with investigation, travel restrictions, and prohibition on reiterating offences; signed by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan.
Mat.Appeal Nos. 262/2016, 368/2016 & 492/2016 These matrimonial appeals arise from a Family Court judgment (OP Nos. 413/2013 and 414/2013) of Pala. The wife sought return of 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments, money and other valuables; the husband sought recovery of articles worth ₹13,90,000 and custody of the child. The Family Court dismissed both the original petition and the counter claim. The High Court, hearing connected appeals filed by both sides, examines whether dowry/stridhan was entrusted to the husband and his family and what relief is warranted. The court finds credible evidence that at least 40 sovereigns of gold were misused by the husband, and that funds comprising a patrimony of ₹20,00,000 paid before/during the marriage were entrusted to the husband and his family. On this basis, the court partly allows Mat. Appeal No.262/2016, directing the husband to return 40 sovereigns of gold (or its present value) and ₹20,00,000 within one month, with interest if not paid. The counter claim for ₹13,90,000 is rejected in Mat. Appeal No.492/2016, and Mat. Appeal No.368/2016 (custody) is dismissed as infructuous since the child has attained majority. The decision clarifies the burden of proof on entrustment in dowry/stridhan disputes and relies on established precedents to this effect.
Abdul Majeed NT, the petitioner, filed WP(C) No.12742 of 2025 in the Kerala High Court seeking to lift the debit freeze on his bank account No. 50100122340840 by the 1st respondent, HDFC Bank, Manjeri Branch. He asserts the bank froze the account in pursuance of police requisitions from respondents 2 to 4 and that the freeze is illegal and arbitrary, depriving him of access to his funds. The bank reports the disputed amount as Rs. 6528 and defends the freeze as a necessary precaution rooted in law and police direction. The proceedings feature submissions by the petitioner’s counsel and the bank’s counsel; the court notes a line of authorities dealing with freezing of bank accounts in cases where police seizure and requisitions are involved. In particular, the court cites Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India, 2024 KLT, which directed banks to confine freezes to the exact amounts specified in police orders and to secure prompt information from police about whether the freeze should continue. It also cites Nazeer K.T. v. Federal Bank Ltd and Supreme Court authorities on Section 102 Cr.P.C.’s reporting requirements. The court agrees with these principles and, applying them to the facts, issues the following directions: confine the freeze to the specified amount; police to inform whether continuing freeze is necessary; banks to act accordingly; if no information within two months, lift the debit freeze. The petition is disposed with these directions.
WP(C) No. 16984/2020 & Conn. Cases The Kerala High Court, in a consolidated judgment by Bechu Kurian Thomas, J., addresses challenges to Kochi Corporation’s property tax regime under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the Kerala Municipalities Rules, 2011. Petitioners, a group of property owners including Gateway Hotels (Taj Kerala Hotels and Resorts Limited) and numerous individual landlords, challenged the levy of revised property tax on bases retroactive to 2016–17, contending non-compliance with statutory prerequisites for fixing basic property tax, public notice requirements (Form 1 publication and two newspaper notices), requirements for classification into zones, and procedural steps culminating in assessment/register entries rather than formal assessment orders. The court examines whether the Government’s fixation of minimum/maximum basic tax rates and the Council’s rates – and their effective date – can have retrospective effect, and whether intimation under Rule 12 and inspection requirements were mandatory or substantial. It articulates a doctrine of substantial compliance, holding that publication of Form 1 in one newspaper can suffice when the intention is to notify the public and the matter is conducted largely in accord with the statutory framework. It also interprets Section 282 (escape from assessment) and 539 (limitation) to permit recovery only for arrears up to three years prior to the date of demand, while recognizing the petitioners’ right to challenge. The court ultimately disposes of the petitions with a regime that upholds the basic tax fixation but restricts recovery to a three-year look-back, directing adjustment for taxes already paid.
This Bail Application arises under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning Crime No.113/2025 of Pazhayannur Police Station, Thrissur. The petitioner, Dileep Kumar, is charged with offences under Sections 132, 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for allegedly abusing a public servant (a Junior Inspector/Special Sale Officer) while the de facto complainant was at the attachment of a house connected with the Thalappilly Sahakarana Sangam. The prosecution contends the incident involved threats, obscene words, and an assault causing deterrence of a public servant from discharging duties. The maximum penalty for the offences is stated to be below seven years, with Section 132 being non-bailable. The counsel for the petitioner urged bail on conditional terms, highlighting readiness to comply and asserting that the petitioner has not committed a crime. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences. The Court, acknowledging the gravity but noting the comparatively limited maximum punishment, and relying on established bail jurisprudence (bail as the rule and jail as the exception), allowed the application with stringent conditions. It cites Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of UP, Manish Sisodia v. CBI, Sushila Aggarwal, and Anzar Azeez as guiding authorities. The order imposes interrogation within two weeks, bond and sureties, travel restrictions, ongoing cooperation, and potential bail cancellation for violations.
Bail Appl. No. 4425 of 2025 Muhammed Najeer, the petitioner, challenges an order arising from Crime No.145/2025 of Thalassery Police Station under Sections 318(4) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). This bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 came up before the Kerala High Court, with the petitioner in custody since 17 February 2025. The prosecution alleges that Najeer obtained 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the complainant via Instagram and collected the gold at Thalassery Railway Station; the gold was not returned. The petitioner’s counsel argued that even on the face of the charge, the offence may not be attracted; the accused is ready to comply with any conditions; indefinite incarceration is unnecessary. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing serious allegations and prior criminal antecedents. After hearing, the court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations but held that detention pending investigation beyond a reasonable period may be unnecessary. Relying on the well‑established bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, as echoed by the Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, and aided by Kerala precedents, the court granted bail with stringent conditions. The petitioner is directed to appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays at 10 a.m. until final report and not to leave India without permission; not to commit a similar offence; and to co‑operate with investigation. The order states that its observations are confined to this bail petition and that noncompliance may lead to cancellation of bail.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P12, the additional final list of eligible voters published for the election to the Managing Committee of the Padinjarethara Service Cooperative Bank, Wayanad. The petitioners, members of the society, contend that Ext.P12 includes 1069 individuals who have not remitted the enhanced share value as required under the bye-laws and Rule 28 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, and are therefore ineligible to vote. Ext.P11 (final voters list) had excluded those who had not paid, and Ext.P12, published on 21.03.2025, reversed that position by adding 1069 names. The petition argues that the Electoral Officer acted illegally and on extraneous grounds by including these names, violating Rule 35A(4) and its explanation as well as Clause 7 and 8 of the bye-laws (Exhibit P2). The respondents counter that the 1069 names were included in accordance with law and that the final list must reflect compliance with the Society’s bye-laws and rules. The court analyses the relationship between membership, voting eligibility, and the enhanced share value, relying on established precedents. It ultimately holds that Ext.P12 to the extent of including the 1069 members must be set aside, directing the electoral process to exclude those ineligible voters. The judgment upholds the binding nature of bye-laws and the Rule 28 constraint on voting rights.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4411 OF 2025 Manu P C, aged 33, is an accused in Crime No. 133/2025 registered at Kodenchery Police Station, Kozhikode, facing offences under Sections 329(4), 126(2) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 31(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act). The application seeks bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution contends that the matrimonial dispute involves violations of DV Act protective orders and linked offences, while the petitioner asserts that all offences except Section 31(1) are bailable. The maximum punishment for Section 31(1) is one year. After hearing the counsels, the court observed that the offences other than DV Act Section 31(1) are bailable and, given the circumstances, bail can be granted with stringent conditions. Citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Joginder Kumar, the court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty and careful avoidance of routine arrest. The court also cited Manish Sisodia on bail in grave offences, and Sushila Aggarwal and Anzar Azeez, along with Azeez v. State of Kerala, to support a principled approach. Consequently, the application is allowed with conditions: the petitioner shall appear before the IO within two weeks, submit to interrogation, bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties, refrain from leaving the country, and comply with other conditions; bail may be cancelled if violated.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges a freezing order placed on the petitioner Mohammed Hussain T.V.’s bank account No. 67335960995 with the State Bank of India. The petitioner alleges that the bank froze the account pursuant to requisitions from police authorities, a measure he argues is illegal and arbitrary and which threatens his ability to conduct ordinary financial transactions. The respondent bank counters that there were four requisitions from the third respondent, reflecting a total disputed amount of Rs 4,00,000, and that the freeze complied with police directions. The court anchors its decision on precedents such as Dr. Sajeer v. RBI and Nazeer K.T, directing that freezes should be confined to the amounts specified in police orders and that banks must obtain timely information from police on whether continued freezing is required, with appropriate time limits. The court also relies on Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 106) and related Supreme Court jurisprudence including Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad, and Shento Varghese to balance police prerogatives with the petitioner’s right to access his funds. The judgment culminates in a set of directions aimed at restrictively confining the freeze, ensuring communication between police and bank, and permitting lifting of the debit freeze if information is not forthcoming. The overall aim is to preserve police interests while safeguarding the petitioner’s financial rights.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1297 OF 2024 K.P. Beena, the fourth accused in Crime No.1105/2022 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta, seeks pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. The prosecution alleges that in April 2018, accused Nos. 1–3, with the fifth accused as Branch Manager, fraudulently obtained a loan by fabricating documents in the name of Beena and using the de facto complainant’s title deeds. Beena allegedly acted as the main applicant, and the loan of Rs.93,00,000 was sanctioned in her name and transferred to the other accused, with the complainant’s title deeds not returned, causing an alleged loss of Rs.1.6 crore. Beena claims she was a victim manipulated by others; she had lent her name for a legitimate business purpose with an understanding with the complainant, and she is innocent of any involvement in deceit. She contends custodial interrogation is unnecessary, she has no criminal antecedents, and she is willing to comply with stringent conditions and cooperate with investigation. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, contending the accused acted in collusion and that recovery is at a nascent stage; custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the entire money trail and to prevent tampering or flight. The court relies on established anticipatory bail jurisprudence to weigh discretion against investigative needs and ultimately denies pre-arrest bail, while directing surrender within 10 days to enable later consideration on merits.”
BAIL APPL. NO. 4302 OF 2025 Rajagopal, the third accused in Crime No. 958/2024 of Chingavanam Police Station, seeks bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS). The case, registered on 12.08.2024, pertains to offences under Sections 74, 76, 115(2), 332(c) and 296(b) read with 3(5) of the BNS for trespass into the defacto complainant’s rented house, wrongful restraint, abusive conduct using obscene words, assault and tearing of the nightie. The petitioner’s counsel contends that, even if all allegations are accepted, the ingredients of these offences may not be attracted; he is ready to comply with stringent bail conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes grant of bail. The Court notes that the main non-bailable offences require investigation and that it is not expressing a final opinion on the ingredients; it is also observed that co-accused have already been released on bail. Relying on Supreme Court precedents on bail, including Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (bail as a rule), Siddharth v. State of UP (personal liberty), Joginder Kumar (distinction between power to arrest and its exercise), Manish Sisodia (grave offences need not bar bail), Sushila Aggarwal (investigation and recoveries on bail), and Anzar Azeez (principle applicable here), the court reiterates that bail is a constitutional safeguard. The court grants bail with stringent conditions: the petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks for interrogation; if the IO proposes arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; must appear for interrogation as required; shall not leave India without court’s permission; shall not commit similar offences; and the investigating officer may continue investigations and effect recoveries if necessary. The order clarifies that these observations are for the bail decision and that violation may result in cancellation of bail, with the principle from Anzar Azeez and Sushila Aggarwal guiding the exercise of power.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA) filed before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta’s order in OPMV 187/2009. The appellant, Sadasivan, sustained extensive injuries in a road accident on 27 March 2009 when a motorcycle (KL-12 C 7867) ridden by the first respondent, driven rashly, struck him while he was a pedestrian. The bike’s owner (second respondent) and the insurer (third respondent) are linked to the accident, with the insurer admitting liability. The Tribunal partially allowed the petition, awarding Rs. 67,700 to be recovered from the insurer. The appellant appealed seeking higher compensation. The insurer did not contest liability and, in the original proceedings, the respondents 1 and 2 were not impleaded in the appeal, with the matter treated per status before the Tribunal. Evidence including Exts. A1–A8 and Ext. C1 (Medical Board disability certificate) supported the claim, indicating a 5% disability. The Tribunal used a notional income of Rs. 4,000, but the High Court, citing Minu Rout and Sarla Varma, revises income to Rs. 7,500, applies a multiplier of 15, and recalculates heads of damages (loss of earnings, medical expenses, bystander expenses, extra nourishment, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss due to disability). The result is a substantial enhancement to Rs. 1,39,000, with interest and costs, and a direction to deposit the enhanced amount within 60 days for disbursement to the appellant. The judgment, delivered by a Single Judge, C.S. Dias, allows the appeal in part.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the appellants (the wife and children of the deceased) challenging an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala, in OPMV 367/2011. The accident occurred on 15 May 2010 when the deceased, T. V. Johny, a driver cum tourist bus operator, riding a motorcycle KL-35/8301, was struck by another motorcycle driven rashly by the second respondent. He sustained multiple injuries and died on 1 August 2010. The appellants claimed compensation of Rs. 2,50,000; the insurer admitted policy coverage but contended that death resulted from cardiac arrest and that the deceased was negligent, seeking dismissal of the petition. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,82,558 with interest and costs, prompting the appeal. The court relies on the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa decision to fix the notional income (refixating the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 7,500 for 2010) and recalculates losses: enhanced loss of earnings, bystander expenses, extra nourishment, pain and sufferings, and loss of amenities. The appeal is allowed in part, increasing the compensation by Rs. 66,250, with interest at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount and costs. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within 60 days, to be disbursed to the first appellant.
This is a writ petition by VasU Coco Resorts Private Limited and Vasundhara Sarovar Premiere Resort challenging Ext.P3 (S.U OLD No.75/2019/Tourism, dated 21.02.2019) which withdrew the electricity tariff concession previously promised under Ext.P1 to promote tourism. The petition traces a policy framework beginning with GO (MS) 537/2000/GAD (26.09.2000) declaring tourism an industry and awarding tariff concessions to five-star hotels and related tourism units; Ext.P1 obligated the State to subsidize the difference between commercial and industrial tariffs for such units for five years from 11.12.2013 to 10.12.2018, with the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) to be paid the subsidy. The petitioners contended that demands for subsidy were repeatedly made and prior writ petitions (notably W.P. 22526/2018) directed the State to disburse or justify non-disbursement within weeks. Ext.P3, issued during litigation, purportedly withdrew the subsidy from 31.03.2015 under a policy shift to incentivize other tourism investments, and was not gazetted. The petition argued that administrative orders are prospective, and retroactive withdrawal violates Article 14; promissory estoppel applies to the State; reliance on Kusumam Hotels (P) Ltd. v. KSEB supported prospective operation. The court ultimately quashed Ext.P3 and granted a mandamus directing disbursement of the eligible subsidy with 6% interest within two months.
Shabeel K P, aged 21, the petitioner and 3rd accused, seeks bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) in Crime No.141/2025 of Shornur Police Station, Palakkad. The case involves offences under sections 64(2)(m), 65, 332(b) and 75(l) of the BNS and 4(2) r/w 3(a), 3(b), 6, 5(l), 8, 7, 10 and 9(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The alleged incident occurred on 16.02.2025 at 01:00 a.m., involving trespass into the survivor’s bedroom, a 14-year-old girl, with sexual intent and alleged penetrative sexual assault. The petition was argued on 02.04.2025 before Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan. The prosecution submitted opposition to bail; the victim was served with notice though did not appear. The petitioner argued detention since 16.02.2025 and his young age, and expressed willingness to comply with conditions. The court, while acknowledging seriousness, relied on established bail principles that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P v. Directorate of Enforcement and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement. It held that bail is warranted and granted with stringent conditions, citing Anzar Azeez and related jurisprudence. The order emphasizes fair trial rights and limits on personal liberty, while reserving jurisdiction to cancel bail for violations.
This Bail Application (BA) concerns the 3rd accused, Afsal.R, in Crime No.324/2025 of the Ezhukone Police Station, Kollam, registered under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS 2023) for offences including sections 296(b), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110, 54 and 3(5). The petitioner seeks bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, arguing that even if the allegations are taken as true, the overt act attributed to him is comparatively lesser than that of other accused, and he is ready to abide by stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but stated that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. The court weighed the competing considerations, noting the foundational principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that personal liberty is a fundamental constitutional value. Citing, among others, Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019), Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2021), Manish Sisodia v. CBI (2023), Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020), Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (2025), and Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994), the court emphasizes cautious use of arrest and the possibility of bail in appropriate cases. The court ultimately permits bail on stringent conditions to safeguard fair trial, public interest, and the accused’s liberty, while preserving investigative cooperation and accountability.
