This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 read with Order XLII, Rule 1 CPC 1908 arises from a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining trespass on plaint schedule property. Plaintiffs contend they acquired the property by Marupattam sale deed No.1191/2012 and have title and possession since 2012; defendants claim right through Chakkiema’s line via prior gift deed No.1452/1973 (Ext A9) and subsequent transfers, asserting that Ext A9 was not acted upon and that Chakkiema’s heirs (defendants) possess the property as legal heirs under partition deed No.842/1972. The trial court and the first appellate court both found in favour of the plaintiffs, holding title and possession to be established and granting the injunction. The defendants challenged in second appeal, arguing lack of title and questioned the validity or enforceability of Ext A9. The court examines documentary evidence, tax receipts, and especially Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, noting that Ext A9 being thirty years old and produced from lawful custody may raise a presumption of due execution and attestation. The High Court affirms concurrent verdicts, holding that Ext A9 is presumptively valid and that mere tax payments do not confer title. It finds no substantial question of law and dismisses the appeal; all interlocutory applications are also dismissed. The judgment emphasizes that second appeals require a substantial question of law and relies on Nazır Mohamed, Kondiba Kadam, Santosh Hazari, and Government of Kerala v. Joseph.
Coach India runs a coaching centre for competitive entrance exams. It challenged a service tax demand for the 2016–2018 period under the heading of ‘commercial training and coaching services’, arising from a show cause notice. The dispute intersects with the SVLDRS Amnesty Scheme (Legacy Dispute Resolution) introduced by Notification No.5 of 2019 (21.08.2019). Under the SVLDRS Rules, 2019, a declarant files SVLDRS-1, the Designated Committee verifies, and an SVLDRS-3 statement is issued indicating the payable liability. The appellant filed SVLDRS-1 on 14.01.2020, with SVLDRS-3 dated 19.02.2020 fixing Rs. 13,895/-. Payment was originally due by 31.03.2020, later extended to 30.06.2020. The appellant says he could not access the CBIC portal during April–May holidays and that technical glitches prevented payment; Ext.P3 shows a payment of Rs.13,900 to his CA on 29.06.2020. The Single Judge relied on Yashi Constructions v. UoI (2022) to deny relief, noting the appellant did not deposit within the prescribed/s extended period. On 08.04.2024, the Division Bench upheld the revenue-friendly view, finding no proven system glitches and that strict adherence to the Scheme’s time limits is essential, resulting in dismissal of the writ appeal. The court also observed the appellant could pursue remedies before the appellate authority.
Rosamma John, owner of 10.12 acres in Koovappally village, filed WP(C) No.5983 of 2024 seeking a building permit for land treated as plantation under revenue records. The petitioner challenged Ext.P6, the Secretary’s rejection of Ext.P5 building permit on the ground that the property is shown as plantation. She contends that exemption of plantation land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (KLR Act) allows construction for other purposes and that denial on this basis is illegal. The court relies on established pronouncements: Mathew K. Jacob and Another v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (Full Bench) holding there is no prohibition in using exempted land for a different purpose under the KLR Act; District Collector v. Sajith Lal (Division Bench) recognizing there is no embargo on using exempted land for non-exempted purposes (though ceilings may apply later); and Elias T.V. and others v. Sub Collector, Wayanad and others, noting that land remains with the holder and Government cannot claim rights without proper determination. Accordingly, Ext.P6, to the extent it rejects the permit on plantation classification, is illegal and arbitrary. The court directs the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P5 within one month, with copy of the judgment provided to the petitioner.
This is a criminal appeal under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging an order of the Special Court Nedumangad granting/denying anticipatory relief in Crl.M.C.3237/2023. The appellant Aneesh S J stands as an accused in Crime No.2175/2023 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, alleged to have committed offences under IPC sections 324, 294(b), 354 and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act 2015). The de facto complainant, Nisha, belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The prosecution contends there are materials to attract the offences; the defense argues that the allegations are false and that the bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Act is not applicable as there is no prima facie case. The Special Judge had rejected anticipatory bail on the ground of these bars. This Court, after examining the facts and relying on precedents such as Prathvi Raj Chauhan, Siddharam S. Mhetre, Gurbaksh Sibbia, and Sushila Aggarwal, holds that the bar under 18/18-A can be inapplicable when prima facie case is not made out and/or where false implication is possible. The Court ultimately allows the appeal, sets aside the dismissal of Crl.M.C 3237/2023, and grants anticipatory bail subject to conditions (bond Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, appearance on dates, and no witness tampering).
Anil Kumar, holder of 3.98 acres of land in Sy.No.19/2 (Block 209) Nadama Village, challenged the Revenue Divisional Officer’s Ext.P6 order rejecting his Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, which had placed his land in the Data Bank as paddy land/wetland. The petition argues the land is not paddy or wetland as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and that inclusion in the Data Bank is erroneous. The RDO’s decision relied solely on the Agricultural Officer’s report, with the LLMC’s conclusion that the land was not converted prior to 2008, to deny removal. The petitioner contends there was a vitiation of mind due to lack of independent assessment and that the governing test is the land’s status as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008, and its suitability for paddy cultivation. The court cites Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (2022 (7) KHC 591), Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2023 (4) KLT 270), and Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2023 (6) KHC 83) to emphasize independent evaluation by the RDO and the predominant feasibility of paddy cultivation. Ext.P6 is set aside; the RDO is directed to reconsider Ext.P4 with a KSRSEC report, at petitioner’s expense, within two months, after the petitioner obtains the report within two weeks and furnishes copies of the judgment and petition to the RDO for compliance. The petition stands disposed of with these directions.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1462 OF 2024 This is a pre-arrest bail (Section 438 CrPC) petition filed by the second accused, Jithu P, in Crime No. 67/2024 of Kovalam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. Four accused are charged with offences including 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 308 and 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, arising from an incident on 21.01.2024 where the defacto complainant alleges that the accused, acting in concert, assaulted him, with the first accused slashing him with a chopper and the second accused striking him with an iron object; the sequence reportedly culminated in grave injuries, including head injuries. The petitioner contends total innocence and false implication, arguing that offences such as 308 and 307 IPC are not made out and that pre-arrest bail was granted to the first accused on the premise that the injury report did not reflect serious injuries. The prosecution challenges parity with the first accused, highlighting a discharge summary showing multiple injuries and an overt act by the petitioner (hitting the complainant with an iron rod) that could attract 307 IPC, thus opposing bail on grounds of potential tampering, witness intimidation, and disruption of investigation. The court relies on Supreme Court precedents (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre; Sibbia; Jai Prakash Singh) to emphasize careful, fact-specific exercise of discretion under Sec. 438 CrPC and refuses anticipatory bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and the material on record. The application is dismissed, with a direction to surrender within ten days; if surrendered, the jurisdictional court may consider the application on merits.
The bail application BA No.1541 of 2024 before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam concerns Anu Micheal, first accused in Crime No.1413/2023 of Thumba Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. Filed under Section 439 CrPC, the petition seeks bail on grounds of innocence, lack of ongoing investigation, and the fact that the second accused has already been enlarged on bail. The prosecution alleges offenses under IPC Sections 294(b) (obscene words), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt with weapon), 326 (attempt to cause grievous hurt) and 308 (attempt to cause hurt) read with Section 34. The petitioner has been in custody since 29.1.2024 – about 45 days at the date of hearing. The counsel for the petitioner asserts false implication, that the IO has added 308 and 326 to deny bail, and that the investigation is practically complete with recovery effected; he notes that the second accused has been granted bail (Annexure-D). The Public Prosecutor counters that the investigation is ongoing, that the petitioner inflicted injuries, and that he has criminal antecedents; she argues bail would jeopardize witnesses and evidence. The High Court, applying well-established precedents on bail, finds that pre-conviction detention should be limited, that bail is the general rule, and that, in the circumstances, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. The court grants bail on specified conditions.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1457 OF 2024 This bail petition under Section 438 CrPC by the fourth accused, BINOY EMMANUEL, in Crime No. 916/2023 of Vengara Police Station, Malappuram, concerns offences under Section 286 IPC and Sections 49(b) and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The prosecution contends that on 14 November 2023, the accused were found carrying out quarry operations and handling explosive substances without a license, thereby endangering life and property. The petitioner asserts total innocence, alleging false implication, and seeks parity with accused 1 and 2 who were granted pre-arrest bail (Annexure II). He argues custodial interrogation is unnecessary and no recovery is to be effected. The Public Prosecutor opposes parity, asserting the petitioner owns the property from which the explosives were seized, custodial interrogation is necessary for investigation, and the case is at a nascent stage. The court relies on Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and the broader anticipatory bail doctrine from Sibbia and Jai Prakash Singh, underscoring that no rigid guidelines can govern bail and discretion must be exercised with care and prudence. The judge ultimately holds that the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail since the explosive substances were seized from his property and custodial interrogation is required. The application is dismissed, with a direction to surrender within 10 days for interrogation; if surrendered, the merits of a fresh bail application may be considered; failure to surrender permits arrest as if no order was passed.
WP(C) Nos.6102 & 6889 of 2024 These writ petitions challenge Ext.P3 memos of the Sub Registrar, Edakkara, refusing to register sale deeds produced as Ext.P2 on grounds that the vendor Nilambur Rubber Company Ltd had only possessory rights in the Nilambur estate rather than ownership. The petitions contend that the Sub Registrar's inquiry and the legal conclusions drawn from the Kerala Land Reforms Act are extraneous to the Registrar’s limited function; registration is a ministerial act that does not, by itself, determine title or confer ownership. The petitioners rely on established High Court jurisprudence to argue that a Sub Registrar cannot adjudicate title disputes or enforce complex ownership questions, and that registration should be allowed if formal requisites under the Registration Act and Stamp Act are satisfied. The respondents, including the Receiver (Additional Respondent 6), contend that Nilambur Kovilakam retains ownership (or ultimate title) to the property and that the 1st petitioner had no title to transfer; Ext.P3 is premised on Kerala Land Reforms Act implications, including possessory rights and alleged non-renewal of a lease. The judgment traverses several prior rulings (Noble John, Divakaran, Santhosh Netto, Eshaque, Sumathi, Balachandran) to assess whether Ext.P3 could be sustained. The Court ultimately holds that Ext.P3 cannot stand, clarifies that registration does not vouch for title, and directs registration of the sale deeds subject to statutory formalities under the Registration and Stamp Acts.
CRL.RC No. 269 of 2018 & Connected Cases This is a batch of suo motu criminal revision petitions before the Kerala High Court arising from orders of acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrates of Kollam in various ST Nos (2013) and related proceedings. The revisions, listed as CRL.RC Nos. 269/2018 and connected cases (including 273/2018, 275/2018, 276/2018, etc.), were heard together before the Hon. Justice P. Somarajan on 7 June 2024. The Administrative Committee’s resolution dated 18-09-2017, directing suo motu proceedings, forms the backdrop, with the State of Kerala through the Public Prosecutor challenging the acquittals and seeking continued proceedings. A central issue is the validity of stopping proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. in summons cases instituted otherwise than on a complaint, particularly where locating the accused is difficult or the costs exceed the maximum prescribed fine. The court cites a Division Bench decision (State of Kerala and Another, 2023 KHC Online 821) to articulate the parameters under which Section 258 may be invoked, including evidence of diligent steps and cost considerations. The judgment concludes that such stoppage is permissible and that the revisions fail, being dismissed and closed, thereby upholding the Magistrates’ powers under the cited provision.
Rani Xavier, the petitioner, challenges Ext.P7, by which the 2nd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), rejected her Form 5 application seeking removal of her land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The land, comprising multiple survey numbers in Muvattupuzha Village (34.40 acres) under Sale Deed No.2770/07, is claimed not to be paddy land or wetland, and is alleged to have been wrongly included in the Data Bank with a ‘fallow’ remark. The RDO rejected the application relying on a report of the Agricultural Officer suggesting marshy character, a water channel on the eastern side, and presence of padasekharam, chembu and kulavazha. The petitioner argues that the decision was vitiated by non-application of mind and failed to consider the land’s status as on the date of coming into force of Act, 2008, and that no independent data was obtained. The Court reiterates the controlling principle that the decisive status is that on the Act’s commencement date, and the RDO must independently assess status rather than relying on LLMC’s view or the Agricultural Officer’s report, citing Muraleedharan Nair, Mather Nagar Residents Association, Adani Infrastructures, and Sudheesh. The court holds Ext.P7 unsustainable and sets it aside, directing reconsideration with KSRSEC data and a fresh Form 5 decision within set timelines.
The petitioner, Baby Sarojam, aggrieved by Ext.P6, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting her Form 5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, challenges the inclusion of her land (7.68 Ares in Re. Sy. No. 34/3, Kollam West Village, Kollam District) in the Data Bank as paddy land. She contends the land is not wetland per Act definitions and argues Ext.P6 suffers from non‑application of mind, relying solely on an Agricultural Officer’s report. She asserts a land originally paddy land would not be wetland and that the RDO should have conducted a site inspection or obtained KSRSEC report as of 12.08.2008 before disposing Form 5. The Court recalls that the critical consideration is the land’s character on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008, and that prior decisions bind the approach to paddy land vs wetland. It cites Suraj K.S., Asma, Arthasasthra Ventures, Adani Infrastructures, and Sudheesh to emphasize that status must be assessed with reference to the date of the Act and suitability for paddy cultivation. The Court finds Ext.P6 vitiated by non‑application of mind and directs reconsideration of Form 5, after obtaining KSRSEC report at petitioner’s expense, within two months, with the petitioner’s obligation to secure said report.
Mayinkadath Aboobacker filed WP(C) No. 32147 of 2019 challenging a vigilance report and subsequent notices allegedly based on unauthorised construction within Neeleeshwaram Municipality limits. He asserts the vigilance report was prepared behind his back and that Exts. P5, P10 and P16 were issued on the basis of material obtained without his knowledge. The petitioner submits that building permits were obtained in 2003 (Gramapanchayat) and, after completion in 2007, the property came within municipal limits in 2010; additional construction was approved in 2012, and an occupancy certificate was granted on 30 September 2013. After a 2016 inspection, the Municipality issued notices for removal of alleged defects and unauthorised structures. The petitioner contends he complied with the directions of the Local Self Government File Adalath (Ext. P13), and relies on Exhibits P14 and P15 to show that the required alterations were addressed. The Municipality disputes full compliance, contending that the building remains unauthorized. The court directed a three-officer inspection team to examine the building in the petitioner’s presence, within three weeks, and to report whether Ext. P13 directions were substantially complied, with minor deviations potentially overlooked. If substantial compliance is found, regularization could be allowed subject to payment of statutory taxes and duties. With these directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of, balancing enforcement against potential regularization for the building complex.
CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018 & connected cases (611/2018, 612/2018, 613/2018, 617/2018, 618/2018, 620/2018, 621/2018, 623/2018, 624/2018, 626/2018, 630/2018, 639/2018, 643/2018, 648/2018, 649/2018, 654/2018, 659/2018, 660/2018, 663/2018, 665/2018, 669/2018, 675/2018, 679/2018, 680/2018, 683/2018, 684/2018, 685/2018, 687/2018, 688/2018, 691/2018, 692/2018, 693/2018, 694/2018, 695/2018, 696/2018, 698/2018, 702/2018, 703/2018, 704/2018, 708/2018, 709/2018, 711/2018, 712/2018, 713/2018, 716/2018, 719/2018, 721/2018, 722/2018, 723/2018) This is a batch of criminal revision petitions (CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018 and connected cases) before Judge P. Somarajan arising from suo motu proceedings under the Administrative Committee’s Resolution dated 18.09.2017. The revisions challenge orders of stoppage of proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. passed by Judicial Magistrates of First Class-II, Kollam, in various ST Nos. 3804/2014, 3645/2014, 2619/2014, 10855/2013, 10846/2013, 10140/2013, 10123/2013, and a string of others, as part of a common reference to kept cases in Kollam. The matter was taken up on 12.06.2024 along with numerous connected CRL.RC Nos. 612/2018, 613/2018, 617/2018, 618/2018, 620/2018, 621/2018, 623/2018, 624/2018, 626/2018, 630/2018, 639/2018, 643/2018, 648/2018, 649/2018, 654/2018, 659/2018, 660/2018, 663/2018, 665/2018, 669/2018, 675/2018, 679/2018, 680/2018, 683/2018, 684/2018, 685/2018, 687/2018, 688/2018, 691/2018, 692/2018, 693/2018, 694/2018, 695/2018, 696/2018, 698/2018, 702/2018, 703/2018, 704/2018, 708/2018, 709/2018, 711/2018, 712/2018, 713/2018, 716/2018, 719/2018, 721/2018, 722/2018 & 723/2018. The judgment discusses powers under Section 258 Cr.P.C. and cites a Kerala High Court Online decision (2023 KHC Online 821) to reflect that in summons cases the Magistrate may stop proceedings if the accused cannot be located after reasonable efforts or if the costs of procuring the accused would exceed the maximum possible fine. The court held that such stoppage is within the magistrate’s jurisdiction and should not be interfered with, but it ultimately concluded that the revisions fail and are closed, thereby dismissing the petitions. The operative order reconciles these numerous connected petitions and closes the revisions on the basis that the stoppage provisions are applicable and the revisions lack merit.
This is a writ petition (WP(C) 6637/2024) filed in the Kerala High Court challenging Ext.P8, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer concerning conversion corrections and data-bank status under Paddy and Wet Lands laws. The petitioners claim the impugned Ext.P8 is not a speaking order and relies solely on a report from the Agricultural Officer, without independent application of mind or a proper scientific assessment of the property’s status as on 12.08.2008. They contend that prior KLUO orders (Ext.P3 to P3(b)) had sanctioned conversion to Parambu/dry land for some portions, but the Land Bank (Data Bank) status was not correctly updated in BTR, leading to erroneous land classifications and tax implications. The petition references prior judgments in Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO to argue that the RDO must independently assess whether removal from the Data Bank would affect paddy cultivation or wetlands. The court accepted that the Ext.P8 order was not a speaking order and that the RDO should independently evaluate the land’s status, leading to setting aside Ext.P8 and directing fresh consideration with an updated KSREC report, while keeping the petition alive for expeditious redress.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1319 OF 2024 Satheesan, the first accused in Kodakara Police Station Crime No.883/2023, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC after more than four months in custody. The prosecution alleges that on 2 November 2023 the accused and an accomplice abused the defacto complainant in vulgar language, intimidated him, brandished a sword, and attempted to attack; during the scuffle the first accused allegedly threw a fire cracker, which did not explode. The allegations span offences under IPC sections 294(b), 506(ii), 308 read with 34 IPC, Arms Act Section 5 read with 27, and Explosives Act Section 9B(1)(b). The petitioner claims innocence, contends the FIR does not attract Section 308; he has been detained since 04.11.2023; investigation largely complete; final report filed. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing the petitioner as a history-sheeter in 18 other cases, including a 302 IPC case, suggesting risk of reoffending. The court notes that no injury was caused by the cracker, and the trial has not yet commenced. Relying on Sanjay Chandra, Dataram Singh, and State of Kerala v. Raneef, the court emphasizes the presumption of innocence and the rule that bail is the norm. Considering the period of custody already served, complete investigation, and the absence of a demonstrated likelihood of absconding, the court grants bail on stringent conditions: bond, sureties, periodic IO appearances, no intimidation, non-commission of offences, passport surrender, territorial limits, and possible cancellation/modification of bail; recoveries may be effected as allowed by Sushila Aggarwal.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1511 OF 2024 Shafeeq, the first accused in Crime No. 29/2024 of Chalissery Police Station, Palakkad, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case registered for offences under Sections 143, 147, 324 and 308 r/w 149 IPC. Arrested on 15.01.2024, he contends innocence and alleges false implication. The prosecution alleges that on 14.01.2024, seven accused formed an unlawful assembly, with the first accused using a sword to strike the first informant and injure him, while others allegedly inflicted injuries on a companion, all in furtherance of their common intention. The petitioner argues that the offence under Section 308 is not attracted, and underscores that investigation is largely complete with recoveries effected; he has remained in judicial custody since 15.01.2024. The Public Prosecutor counters bail, noting ongoing investigation and pointing to the Accident Register-Cum-Wound Certificate showing multiple lacerations, though conceding the petitioner’s custody and that investigations are at a late stage. The court, after evaluating the injuries and materials, emphasizes the presumption of innocence and the bail principle as a rule, citing Supreme Court jurisprudence to safeguard liberty and limit pre-conviction detention. It relies on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, Dataram Singh v. State of UP, and State of Kerala v. Raneef, with Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) applied for bail-recovery guidance. The judge grants bail with stringent conditions, directing Rs.1,00,000 bond with two solvent sureties, and imposes conditions including appearance, no coercion or tampering with evidence, non-commission of offences, passport surrender, and territorial limits.
Albin M.A @ Ambrose (Appellant) filed WA 218/2024 challenging a stop memo issued by Thrikkakkara Municipality for construction near a river, with environmental concerns tied to coastal regulation. The writ petition was originally filed by Thomas Chacko (Respondent No.1), Thrikkakara Municipality (Respondent No.2), and the District Level Committee of Coastal Zone Management Authority (Respondent No.3). The appellant sought to assert locus standi as a neighbouring resident, citing Kunjumuhammed v. State of Kerala and another (2013) 3 KHC 436. The High Court held that locus standi exists for nearby residents where environmental protection rules apply, but addressed whether the CRZ notification could have prospective effects against building permits issued prior to 28/02/2019. The appellant argued under Rule 23(4) of Chapter IV of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 that CRZ restrictions should apply to new constructions only, implying renewal would be invalid post-CRZ map. The respondents countered with note to Rule 15(8) of Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019, clarifying that non-commencement does not bar renewal. The court found that CRZ restrictions cannot operate retrospectively against permits already issued before the restriction; renewal is a continuation of the original permission under its terms. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed, though the Municipality was directed to regulate waste discharge into the river per the trial court’s directions, and to act on pending renewal applications consistent with the judgment."
This is a Kerala High Court bail order under section 439 CrPC in BA No.1355 of 2024 concerning accused 3 and 4 in Crime No.06/2024 of Kattoor Police Station, Thrissur. The prosecution alleges offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w 149 IPC, arising from an incident on 01.01.2024 where six accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with an iron pipe and a sword. The first informant sustained a grievous injury to the head; others were injured as well. The petitioners were arrested on 06.02.2024. The Magistrate had earlier dismissed a bail application under Section 437 CrPC on 13.02.2024 while the injured were hospitalized. The petitioners’ counsel contends they are innocent, with no specific overt act attributed to accused 3 and 4 in the FIR, and that they have been in custody since 06.02.2024 with recoveries effected, making further detention unnecessary. The State counters that the investigation is ongoing, witnesses may be influenced, and the petitioners have antecedents. The High Court notes prima facie that accused 1 and 2 caused the grievous injuries, while accused 3 and 4’s involvement is less direct. Relying on the completion of investigation and risk mitigation, the court grants bail with stringent conditions, citing Sushila Aggarwal for recoveries on bail.
The petitioners, Tojo John and his wife Selmam P. Sebastian, challenge OP (DRT) No.69/2024 before the Kerala High Court, seeking to set aside Ext.P9 (04.12.2023) in IA 2221/2023 in SA 205/2023 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Ernakulam. Ext.P9 had dismissed their application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the mortgaged asset and determine whether the land is agricultural in nature, so that SARFAESI actions could be prevented by the agricultural land exemption under Section 31(i). The background facts: the couple obtained a ₹50 lakh Kisan Credit Card overdraft in 2014 for agricultural purposes; the second petitioner is a co-obligant. After a default, the bank declared the account as NPA on 02.04.2021 and invoked SARFAESI, issuing a Section 13(2) notice and taking symbolic possession. The CJM, Kottayam, appointed an Advocate Commissioner, who issued a notice, triggering the petitioners to file SA 205/2023. During proceedings, IA 2221/2023 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was dismissed (Ext.P9); extant notices (Ext.P10) of possession were issued. The petitioners contend the asset is agricultural land and therefore protected; the bank contends that Section 31(i) is not an absolute shield and evidence can be adduced at final hearing, with Section 18 providing an appellate remedy. The High Court, citing Jayakumar R. v. SBI as distinguishable on facts, did not interfere under Article 227, and dismissed the petition, allowing the SARFAESI process to proceed subject to law.
