BA Nos. 7913, 7981, 8006, 8059, 8203, 8239, 8606, 8754 & 8763 of 2022 These are multiple bail petitions filed in the Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) on behalf of Sri Lankan refugees/foreign nationals accused in crime numbers 529/2022 (Pallithottam Police Station, Kollam District) and 868/2022 (East Police Station, Kollam District). The petitions, heard largely on 22 November 2022 (with interim orders previously passed on 28 October 2022 and 04 November 2022), seek regular bail or relief from detention. The petitioners claim false implication and highlight humanitarian concerns—pregnancy, a child with Kernicterus, and other health issues—arguing for release with conditions, or for staying in refugee camps or transit arrangements until detention centers are established. The prosecution counters that the investigation is serious and ongoing, and that foreign nationals cannot be allowed to roam freely post-release; they urge detention arrangements, transit centers, and careful supervision through FRRO and other authorities. The court considers interim arrangements already in place (Open Prison/Correctional Home, Gandhi Bhavan Trust transit home, and movement under police surveillance) and directs further steps: transfer to transit facilities, educational arrangements for children, and continued supervision, while noting the need for official instructions from Kerala, Central Government, and Tamil Nadu authorities. The matter is to be kept open for further orders and final reports within a short period, with a next posting date.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1039 OF 2023 This is an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by accused nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 800 of 2022, Kozhinjampara Police Station, Palakkad, before the Kerala High Court. The prosecution alleges that on 11 December 2022, during a marriage function, the accused assaulted the de facto complainant and his brother following a dispute linked to seating arrangements, with the first accused beating and kicking the complainant causing him to fall from a motorcycle and suffer burn injuries. The third accused is alleged to have beaten the complainant’s brother, resulting in bleeding. Medical records show that the brother sustained a comminuted fracture of the left temporal bone with subdural hemorrhage, pneumocephalus, and related CT findings. The defense contends innocence and attributes the incident to sudden provocation during the function, asserting that the third accused alone used a stone; the other two did not wield any weapon. The Public Prosecutor submits that the injuries are serious and arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary. After reviewing the case diary and medical evidence, the court notes that weapon use is alleged against only the third accused and that investigation for him requires arrest and weapon recovery, while the other two have no weapon allegations. The court ultimately grants anticipatory bail to accused nos.1 and 2 with conditions, and dismisses the anticipatory bail for accused no.3.
This Regular Second Appeal concerns a civil dispute where the plaintiff, John Paul, seeks declaration of his right to a 1/3rd share in Cardinal Padiyara Public School at Manimala, along with accounts, settlement of income, perpetual and mandatory injunctions. The plaintiff contends that his father, Paul J. Alunkal, established the school in 2001 and, by an agreement dated 10.04.2004, his family had a 1/3rd share in the school and its properties; upon his father’s death in 2008, these rights were to devolve on the plaintiff. Allegations include an agreement dated 23.09.2008 by the 2nd defendant promising Rs. 20 lakhs in exchange for the plaintiff’s rights, with partial payments subsequently made to the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff seeks to compel production of school records, extract accounts from June 2008 onward, and restrain the defendants from convening a Managing Committee without prior notice to the plaintiff. The defendants contested maintainability, limitation, and lack of party status, claiming the school is run by a Trust and that the plaintiff’s claims are unfounded. Ex parte decrees were issued against the defendants; the appellate courts denied condonation of delay. The Kerala High Court, finding the delay explained by extraordinary personal circumstances (including the death of the defendants’ only son), allowed the appeal on substantial costs, and set aside the ex parte decree and first appellate order on condition of payment of Rs.25,000 within a week, directing expeditious disposal of the case by the trial court.
This is a consolidated writ petition proceeding in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam before Justice T.R. Ravi, regarding freezing of bank accounts in cybercrime investigations. WP(C) No. 10612 of 2024, along with connected cases, involves petitioners who allege undue hardship and overbroad freezing of their bank accounts by banks or police in cyber financial fraud matters, and respondents including state police heads, cyber crime cells, financial institutions, and central authorities like the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and RBI. The Court examines the proportionality and legality of freezing orders, balancing ongoing investigations with the petitioners’ access to funds. It cites Dr. Sajeer v. RBI (2023 KHC OnLine 661) to frame its directions and lays down interim directives restricting freezes to the exact amounts mentioned in police requisitions, and requiring police to specify the freeze details to banks. The order directs banks to confine freezes to the stated sums and allows modification only upon new information; police must inform banks of the freeze parameters; petitioners retain the right to approach the court if information is not provided. The judgment disposes of the petitions with these directions, aiming for due process, proportionality, and inter-agency coordination in cross-jurisdictional cybercrime banking cases, while leaving room for future adjustments as necessary.
The Travancore Devaswom Board (the petitioner) challenged property tax levies by Cherthala Municipality on the auditorium building No. IV/208A situated in the Cherthala Sree Karthiyayini Devi Temple premises, which is under the Board’s management. The relevant demands spanned multiple years: Rs. 12,024 for the second half of 1996-97 (paid 28.03.2010), Rs. 1,64,128 for 1997-98 to 2009-10, Rs. 4,19,278 for 1997-98 to 2011-12, and Rs. 4,37,314 for 2012-13. The petitioner sought quashing Ext.P2 and a mandamus to stop further tax, contending that the auditorium is a temple asset and should be exempt. It invoked vacancy remission under Section 239 for non-use, and argued that the building’s temple context and TD Board control should shield it from taxation. The respondents argued that Section 233 mandates tax on buildings within municipal limits unless exempted by Section 235 and that exemptions do not apply here; vacancy remission required timely notice, which was not properly pursued. The court examined Sections 233, 235 and 239 and cited authorities including Attukal Bhagavathy Trust, Abu K.S., M.V. Ramasubbiar, A.A. Gopalakrishnan, Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair, T. Krishnakumar, and Bhaskara Rao A.B. It ultimately held that the assessment had become final, vacancy remission was not timely sought, and the petition was dismissed, while directing suo motu action regarding non-use in related matters.
The Kerala High Court hears a criminal appeal (CRL.A No. 846 of 2007) arising from SC 1365/2001, a trial for offences under the Abkari Act. The sole convict, Muthila alias Chandran, was found in possession of 5 litres of arrack and convicted under Section 58 of the Abkari Act, receiving two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a Rs 1 lakh fine. The appeal proceeds despite the appellant’s death, since the sentence is composite and the matter does not abate per the ratio in Ramesan (Dead) through Lr. v. State of Kerala (2020) 3 SCC 45; the High Court must decide on merits. The crux of the appeal challenges the authenticity of the sampling process: the court-ordered drawing of a sample from the bulk arrack by the court’s property clerk, rather than by a police/excise officer, and the failure to forward the specimen seal to the Chemical Examiner. The prosecution’s chain-of-custody and the link between the seized contraband and the laboratory analysis are questioned. The court relies on Baburaj v. State of Kerala (2021 (6) KLT 416), Smithesh v. State of Kerala (2019 (2) KLT 974), Baby v. State of Kerala (2020 (2) KLT 590), and Rajamma v. State of Kerala (2014 (1) KLT 506) to reiterate that magistrates may not draw samples; without proper sampling and sealing, the Chemical Analysis Report has no evidentiary value. Concluding that the link to the contraband is not established, the court allows the appeal and sets aside the conviction and sentence.
The Chirakkal Kovilakam Devaswoms filed W.P.(C) No.23983 of 2019 under Article 226 seeking a mandamus to compel payment of compensation for land acquired for the National Highway-17 project. Exts.P3 and P4 under the National Highways Act, 1956 (Section 3-D) declared vesting of properties for the purpose of NH-17. The petitioner contends that the 2216 sq.m. land in Sy.No.218/1 (new Sy.No.218/5) in Cheruthazham is Devaswom property, though Ext.P4 describes it as "nallathu puramboke" and as private land. Despite representations (Exts.P5, P2) showing the land as Devaswom-owned, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner, and payment has instead been directed to the State. Respondents contend no title in the petitioner's name, that Ext.P4 records show the land as private garden land, and that the petitioner failed to claim compensation within time; the Act provides an exclusive remedy and the petition is misconceived in a writ petition. The Court analyzes duties to protect Devaswom properties (citing A.A. Gopalakrishnan; Travancore Devaswom Board; Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury; Shankara Co-op Housing) and notes CALA’s failure to furnish owner details. Although delay and laches are present, the Court holds discretionary relief is warranted to remedy titled-inquiry failures and directs processing of the compensation claim under Sections 3-G(4) and 3-H, with reference to deposit and possible referral to a Civil Court. The petition is disposed with these directions.
This bail application under Section 439 CrPC concerns Muhammed Salih, the second accused in S.C.No.901/2018, pending before the First Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The prosecution charges him with conspiring with the first accused to murder Rajesh, following an alleged adulterous suspicion; the conspiracy involved several associates, and on 26.03.2018 the accused allegedly reached Rajesh’s recording studio, attacked Rajesh and CW1, and Rajesh died from the injuries. A FIR was registered on 27.03.2018 and the case includes offences under IPC sections 302, 307, 120B, 449, 201, 202, 212 read with 34, and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Salih has been in judicial custody since 10.04.2018; he had earlier sought bail, which this Court rejected, and he sought relief following a Supreme Court directive allowing him to approach the Sessions Court again. The prosecution contends that the offence is grave, the evidence is being examined, and the trial is in final stages, with a danger of absconding if released. The petitioner argues that prolonged incarceration violates Article 21, citing principles from Satender Antil, Ram Govind Upadhyay, and Ash Mohammad. The Court recognizes the liberty–public interest balance but emphasizes the gravity of the crime, likely punishment, and risk of flight, denying bail. The petition is dismissed.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1585 OF 2023 This is a bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by accused nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 110/2023 of Kollam West Police Station, seeking pre-arrest bail. The prosecution alleges offences including sections 294(b), 323, 324, 308, 447, 427 and 506 read with section 149 IPC, arising from an incident on 15.01.2023 during which, as alleged office-bearers of the Thuyyam Church, the petitioners allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, attacked the defacto complainant with an iron rod and a stick, and damaged the complainant’s shop, following a dispute over church administration. The complainant claims that the accused assaulted him resulting in swelling and injuries; the injuries described in the wound certificate are stated to be minor but the prosecuting agency contends the risk of grave harm or culpable homicide. The petitioners argue innocence, lack of intent to kill, and offer to cooperate with the investigation, requesting anticipatory bail. The defacto complainant, impleaded as additional respondent, opposes bail citing substantial loss and the threat of further action, and the Public Prosecutor also opposes bail on grounds of seriousness and need for custodial interrogation. The court notes the FIS and the lack of decisive custodial necessity, but recognises the seriousness of the allegations. It ultimately grants bail on specified conditions including surrender, bonds, regular appearances, cooperation, protection of witnesses, and non-interference with the complainant’s shop, with breach to cancel bail. The petitioners are thus released on bail with conditions.
The petitioners, Sikhivahan and Nalini, sought a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P4 and a direction to issue an Occupancy Certificate and assign a building number for a hall constructed on land at Puthenvelikkara after obtaining Ext. P1 building permit. The petition states that construction was done on land historically treated as purayidam (paddy land) and that building permit was issued after due verification and site inspection, with completion content submitted under Rule 25 of the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011. The respondents denied occupancy certificate claiming the land classification as nilam under land records. The court examined precedents including Leela Santu and Mahin v. Keezhmad Grama Panchayat to interpret the pre-2017 building permits and the applicability of Section 14 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. It held that where permits were issued before 30.12.2017 and construction completed, occupants are entitled to occupancy certificates, notwithstanding the land’s classification in tax records, and that the State’s restrictions cannot bar occupancy certificates in such circumstances. The judgment directs grant of occupancy certificate within one month and orders property numbering and tax assessment consideration thereafter.
Syam P.R., a devotee of Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple, challenged the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee’s tender for conducting Thulabharam Vazhipadu. Ext. P2, dated 11.01.2023, offered an almost negligible commission of 0.0001 paisa for Rs.100, prompting the petitioner to contend malpractices and improper evaluation. He sought a writ of mandamus restraining the award to the 4th respondent and directing proper tender assessment, including scrutiny of the background of bidders to prevent exploitation. The matter was admitted on 14.02.2023. On 01.03.2023, the Court directed that award to the 4th respondent would be subject to Ext. P1 directions and ordered measures: CCTV monitoring at the Thulabharam Counter, preservation of footage, frisking of employees, and notification boards in multiple languages informing devotees that dakshina is not to be demanded. The Court relied on Suo motu v. State of Kerala and others (2022) for anti-exploitation directives and on Anilkumar T.K. v. Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries to support the permissibility of negotiated tenders where rates are anomalous. After considering submissions, the Court held no valid ground to interfere with the 4th respondent’s tender, subject to Ext. P1 compliance, and disposed of the petition with explicit directions for ongoing compliance, including perishable-item replacement and CCTV oversight to prevent misuse.
SSCR No.23 of 2022 and DBP No.70 of 2022 This is a Suo Motu proceeding before the Kerala High Court concerning the implementation and management of the Virtual-Q system for Sabarimala Darshan during the Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season 1198 ME (2022-23). The Court’s 20 January 2023 order, delivered by a Division Bench, consolidates SSCR No.23/2022 and DBP No.70/2022 and directs the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to assume ownership and management of the Virtual-Q system from the Kerala Police, with technical support from Tata Consultancy Services (TCS). It emphasizes that crowd management at Nilakkal, Pamba, Sannidhanam and along trekking routes is to be governed by the TDB in accordance with Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, and related statutes. The Court reiterates that SPMS (Virtual-Q) is integral to safe pilgrimage, requiring access for police verification and security inputs, while mandating privacy compliance under IT Rules. The order also covers medical facilities, trekking path management, traffic and parking controls, spot booking, Annadanam, sanitation, and special queues for elderly, disabled, and children. It references prior Suo Motu rulings and related judgments to guide ongoing crowd management, and disposes of the SSCR and DBP with explicit directions for next season’s implementation and reporting obligations.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.MC No. 353 of 2025) arising from Crime No. 2639/2019 of Chengannur Police Station, Alappuzha, and pending as CC 2614/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur. The petitioners—NISAMUDEEN, HASNA, and RIHAN—are accused under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, who seek to quash the FIR, the final report, and all further proceedings on the basis of a settlement between the parties. The 3rd respondent/de facto complainant supports quashing, having sworn affidavits that the FIR was a result of misunderstandings and that the disputes have been resolved; the parties are living as husband and wife. The High Court relies on the principles laid down in B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh that, where a genuine settlement exists and there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction, the High Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash non‑compoundable offences. The court notes that continuing proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process, and accordingly quashes Annexure-A1 FIR, Annexure-A2 Final Report, and all further proceedings in CC No. 2614/2021. The decision is by Judge C. Jayachandran, Single Judge.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C No. 491 of 2025) instituted by Mariya T.P and Maimoonath T.P (accused Nos. 2 and 3) challenging the proceedings arising from Crime No. 784/2016 of Nallalam Police Station, Kozhikode, which is pending as C.C.No.385/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode. The sole allegation relates to offences under Section 498A IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The petition seeks quashing of the entire proceedings on the basis that the parties have amicably settled their disputes. The court directed recording of the defacto complainant’s statement, which revealed that the issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled and that she has no objection to quashing. An Annexure-A2 affidavit states the parties have resolved their differences and will live separately, with no grievance against the petitioners. The court, after assessing the settlement’s genuineness and bonafides, held that the settlement satisfies the parameters laid down in B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh, and that there is little likelihood of conviction; continuing the criminal proceedings would thus be futile and amount to abuse of process. Consequently, the Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-A1 Final Report and all further proceedings against accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No. 784/2016 and CC No. 385/2019.
This is an Article 227 petition filed by Kohensur D. Jayan challenging three interlocutory orders of the Family Court, Ernakulam, dated 14-10-2022 in I.A. Nos. 820/2022, 822/2022 and 823/2022 in O.P. No. 2214/2016. The Family Court had allowed calls for details of a prepaid mobile connection (no. 8714800395) for 2015–2021, permitted recall and re-examination of the petitioner to confront an audio CD (Ext. A10) and ordered sending diaries (Exts. A26–A27) to the Forensic Science Laboratory for handwriting comparison. The petitioner argued these interventions after evidence was closed would protract the proceedings, sought to avoid confronting the recording, and contended that Ext. A10, being electronic, required 65B certification and could invade privacy. The respondent contended these steps were necessary to uncover truth. The High Court allowed the petition in part, setting aside Exts. P7 and P8, and held Ext. P9 action (handwriting comparison) permissible; Exts. P4 and P5 (call details and audio confrontation) were not sustained as belated and not for filling lacunae. Relying on Apex Court rulings (Ram Rati v. Mange Ram; Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar; K.K. Velusamy), the court reiterated that recall under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is to clarify doubts, must be sparing, and not used to fill evidentiary gaps. The petition stands allowed in part with follow-up action per Ext. P9.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 8855 of 2023) filed under Section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court by the petitioners, Balakrishnan and Sindhu Balakrishnan, who are accused in CC No.172/2016 arising from Crime No.170/2011 of Panangad Police Station. The protest complaint in the Magistrate’s court involved offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners contend that the dispute between the parties has been settled and there is no objection to quashing the proceedings. The Public Prosecutor, while acknowledging settlement, expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement. After considering pleadings, victim’s affidavit, and records, the court relies on Supreme Court precedents—State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) (5) SCC 688, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) (10) SCC 303, and Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another (2014) (6) SCC 466)—to lay down the governing principles. The Court held that under S.482 CrPC, quashing is permissible for non-compoundable, private-offence disputes where the entire dispute has been settled and the offence is not of a heinous or public-society nature. It, however, excludes heinous offences and offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or offences by public officials. Applying these tests, the dispute here is private, the settlement is complete, and the proceedings are quashed. The petition is allowed.
Wings Charitable Trust, a charitable entity, obtained a building permit (Ext. P4) from the Pulamathol Grama Panchayath to construct a mosque. With construction nearing completion (Exts. P5–P7 photographs), the petitioner challenges a stop memo (Ext. P8) issued by the District Collector (5th respondent) following a complaint by the 7th respondent. The petition contends that the stop memo contravenes the amendment to Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2019, effective 28.06.2021, which removed the requirement of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for constructing religious structures and supported by the valid building permit. The court notes that construction is in accordance with the permit and there is no challenge to adherence to Ext. P4; the only basis for Ext. P8 is the complaint filed by the 7th respondent, who did not appear in court. It is highlighted that the District Collector’s reason is unsupported, and the counter-affidavit mentions concerns about public difficulties due to nearby mosques, but no specific issue with the petitioner’s project is stated. The court also cites relevant precedent: W.P.(C) No.13544 of 2020, and St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church, Chalissery v. State of Kerala (2024 KHC 405), to emphasize that proximity to other religious institutions cannot automatically bar mosque construction and that Rule 5 amendment has been repelled in the cited decision. Consequently, the court holds that Ext. P8 cannot stand and sets it aside, directing that respondents proceed strictly in accordance with law if necessary, while disposing of the petition.
WP(C) Nos. 8322/2022; 5358/2022; 9622/2022 Three connected writ petitions from different schools/components of the Kerala education department challenge the assignment of Night Watchman duties to Lab Assistants, a role Petitioners contend is intended for Class IV staff. The petitions seek quashing of Exhibit P13 (Clause 6 of Chapter 2) in the Higher Secondary Examinations Manual and a mandamus restraining Lab Assistants from performing Night Watchman tasks, along with directions to the government to consider Petitioners’ representations (Exhibits P14, P7) after hearing. The State and Education Department rely on policy and administrative prerogatives for duty allocation and contend that changes in duties are a matter of governance that must proceed with due process, including hearing. The court notes these matters are policy-driven and whether to reallocate duties should be decided by the Government after affording hearing to the petitioners. The judgment disposes of the petitions by common judgment, directing the Government to expeditiously consider representations with a heard-audience, providing a two-month window for decision, and enabling the petitioners to furnish copies of the judgment for compliance. The order leaves the petitioners’ other contentions open for further challenge, and provides a pathway for redress through representations and subsequent orders.
The Kerala High Court hears a challenge to the National Highways Authority of India’s proposed 45-metre-wide alignment of NH-66 (formerly NH-17) intended to enable higher speeds. The petitioners—landowners whose lands were acquired in 2008 for a 30-metre widening—argue that the acquired lands lie idle and will be wasted under the revised alignment, which cuts across only parts of their property and would necessitate further expropriation. They assert that the Section 3D notification under the National Highways Act, 1956 is incompetent and illegal, and contend that Government of Kerala approval for the alignment is not required; they seek re-examination of the alignment so that the already-acquired lands are used first and displacement is minimized. The respondents, led by the NHAI, contend that widening to 45 metres is necessary to support speeds up to 100 km/h, requiring a straight central line and thus some portions must be reacquired while other portions can be repurposed for rest shelters and service roads. They further argue that the NH Act does not require Kerala government approval and that the project is within expert oversight. The court recalls the Salini principle that once a 3D notification is issued, alignment cannot be reviewed or altered, and ultimately disposes of the petition, declining to interfere and closing the matter.
This Criminal Misc. Case arises under Section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court in respect of CC No.40/2023 pending in the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class‑III Kozhikode. The petition seeks quashing of proceedings in a case where the petitioners (Accused Nos.1 to 4) are alleged to have, in common intention, restrained and assaulted the respondents on 23.11.2022, causing injuries; the offences involved are 341, 323, 324, and 326 IPC read with 34. The petition contends that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the respondents do not wish to pursue the case further. The Public Prosecutor, while expressing reservations about quashing mere on the basis of settlement, concedes there are no other serious crimes against the petitioners. The Court cites State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and the earlier Gian Singh and Narinder Singh decisions to lay down the constitutional principle that Section 482 CrPC can quash non‑compoundable offences—primarily private, civil in character—when the entire dispute has been settled, provided the offence is not of a heinous nature or under special statutes. After weighing the gravity of the offence, injuries, antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the Court holds that quashing would promote peace and the ends of justice. The petition is allowed and the final report and all further proceedings are quashed.
