BAIL APPL. NO.1990 OF 2023 Salman Faris, aged 25, is the sole accused in Crime No.50/2022 of the Kozhikode Excise Range Office. He moved Bail Application No. 1990 of 2023 under Section 439 CrPC seeking release during ongoing NDPS proceedings. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act offences alleged are Sections 22(c) and 20(b)(ii)(B), based on a seizure on 21.11.2022 when he was found with 3.25 grams of LSD, 10 grams of MDMA, and 5 grams of ganja while transporting on a motorcycle KL 11 AB 1888 along Aravindghosh Road, Kozhikode. The counsel contends that the investigation is complete, the final report filed, and that his continued detention is unnecessary since the search and seizure were vitiated due to non-compliance with mandatory procedures under Section 42 and 50; he suggests that information in writing to arrest was not taken, search of the body was not conducted before a gazetted officer, and thus the search and seizure are invalid. He cites Sarija Banu alias Janarthani alias Janani and another v. State through Inspector of Police (2004) 12 SCC 266 and Majeed CP v. State of Kerala. He contends Section 37’s rigour is diluted in his case. The Public Prosecutor argues full compliance with NDPS provisions, including writing the information to arrest and body search with CW25’s presence, citing Annexure 4 (final report). He argues that in joint combing operations, substantial compliance exists, though the contraband is a commercial quantity. The court, following Md. Nawaz Khan and Abeesh, concludes substantial compliance given the joint operation and CW25’s permission for body search, but notes the contraband is a commercial quantity, invoking the rigour under Section 37. After applying the broad bail parameters from Prasanta Kumar Sarkar, the court finds no reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty or not likely to reoffend on bail, and therefore declines bail. The application is dismissed.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1010 OF 2024 This is a Kerala High Court bail application under Section 439 CrPC, arising from Crime No.1204/2023 at Aloor Police Station, Thrissur. The first accused, Lalu, is alleged to have stored large quantities of liquor contraband (2211 litres of spirit, 3816 litres of brandy, 5760 litres of rum) in his premises, in violation of the Kerala Abkari Act (sections 55(a), 55(h), 55(i), 58). The prosecution contends that the accused is connected to a larger contraband network and to other IPC crimes, and notes the investigation is still ongoing with a final report not yet laid, though the accused was remanded on 27.12.2023. The defence contends the premises were leased to tenants, the accused was unaware of the illicit activities, and custodial interrogation is complete; he argues his indefeasible right to statutory bail accrued because investigation has not been completed within the statutory time. The prosecution counters that the investigation remains in progress due to the vast contraband, and the accused has prior IPC involvement. The court relies on Supreme Court precedents—Sanjay Dutt and Uday Mohanlal Acharya—to hold that an indefeasible right to bail accrues on default of investigation and survives only up to the filing of the challan. Consequently, the bail application is allowed, with bond and sureties, and standard bail conditions, and directions to transmit the order to the State Police Chief.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1036 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by accused 1, 3 and 4 in Crime No. 1662 of 2023 registered with Thalassery Police Station, Kannur, challenging custody in connection with offences punishable under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 149. Accused were arrested on 26.12.2023. The prosecution alleges they, along with others forming an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons, restrained the complainant; the first accused allegedly struck the complainant with a sharp weapon, causing injuries. The petitioners contend innocence and have been in judicial custody for about 53 days; investigation is reported to be practically complete with recoveries effected. The 2nd accused has already been granted bail by the Sessions Court (Annexure II). The Public Prosecutor opposes bail claiming risk of witness intimidation and tampering, but concedes the prolonged custody is excessive. The court relies on Supreme Court precedents, including Sanjay Chandra, Dataram Singh and State of Kerala v. Raneef, to emphasize presumption of innocence, the general rule that bail is often appropriate, and the need to avoid undue pretrial detention. The court also notes the possibility of recoveries even while on bail as affirmed in Sushila Aggarwal. After careful consideration of facts, the judge concludes that continuous detention is not necessary and grants bail subject to stringent conditions, including bond, appearance, no tampering, passport surrender, and the power to cancel bail for violations, with a caveat for judicial oversight of recoveries.
Petitioner Thomas P.V., owner of 1.24 hectares in Sy.No.85/2-2, Block No.99, Pothukal Village, Nilambur Taluk, Malappuram District, approached this Court challenging Ext.P9, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting his Form 5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. He contends that the land is neither paddy land nor wetland and has been erroneously included in the Data Bank. The RDO rejected the application citing the Agricultural Officer’s report and the KSREC report, which allegedly describe the land as low-lying and prone to waterlogging during the rainy season, with surrounding features including vegetation and structures. The petitioner argues that Ext.P9 suffers from non-application of mind, misinterpretation of KSREC findings, and reliance on LLMC conclusions rather than an independent assessment; he asserts that status must be determined as on the Act’s coming into force and not solely on post-enactment reports. The court invokes Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO, Mather Nagar Residents Association, Sudheesh v. RDO, and Adani Infrastructures to emphasize that the RDO must independently evaluate the land’s status and adhere to statutory definitions of wetland and paddy land, rather than merely endorsing reports. It holds that fallow land is not per se wetland and directs reconsideration based on Ext.P7 KSREC report and binding precedents within two months, disposing of the petition with these directions.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1008 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by Sreenish Pookkodan, the sole accused in Crime No. 2957/2023 of Ernakulam South Police Station, facing charges under Section 451 IPC and Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(c) and 5(1) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The prosecution alleges that, while employed on a contract with Cochin Shipyard Limited, the petitioner used his mobile to photograph and record sensitive details about defence ships, their maintenance, and visits of VVIPs, and communicated the information to a social media account linked to an entity in Pakistan. He was arrested on 21.12.2023 and has remained in custody for over 57 days. The petitioner’s counsel contends innocence, complete or near-complete investigation, and willingness to comply with stringent conditions; he argues detention is unnecessary and violates fundamental rights. The Public Prosecutor counters that the investigation is not complete, cyber-forensic analysis is ongoing, and there is a real risk of flight. The High Court references Supreme Court principles on presumption of innocence, bail as a rule, and protection against indefinite detention (Article 21), considering the facts and the lack of prior criminal history. It ultimately allows bail with stringent conditions, balancing security concerns with the right to liberty, and notes that recoveries may proceed under applicable guidelines.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a dispute over injunctive relief and boundary identification in a land matter before the High Court of Kerala, Manjeri. The appellant-defendant, N.P. Vijayaraghavan, challenges the judgments of the Munsiff Court, Manjeri in O.S. No.79 of 2012 and of the Sub Court, Manjeri in A.S. No.5 of 2016, which decreed a permanent prohibitory injunction in favor of the plaintiffs (original owner and successors) against trespass and encroachment on plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs claim title through a partition deed (1946) and subsequent sale to the 2nd plaintiff, with the 3rd plaintiff as spouse of the 2nd. The defendant contends that a boundary exists and that a portion of the plaint schedule property belongs to him, with a cross-claim for boundary fixation and recovery of possession. The trial court granted a permanent injunction; the appellate court affirmed. The High Court, on hearing, finds that the properties identified for injunction were not properly delineated with reference to title deeds or reliable surveys, and that the Commissioner’s report identified the plaint schedule property as shown by the plaintiffs rather than independently. It remits Ext.C2 to the Commissioner for fresh measurement, directs fresh disposal by the trial court within eight months, and vacates interlocutory orders pending in the second appeal. The matter is to be expedited.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a partition dispute over plaint B schedule properties in OS No.123/2012 of the Munsiff Court, Perinthalmanna, as affirmed by the Sub Court, Manjeri in AS No.19 of 2016. The defendants 2 to 4, 6 and 7 and the legal heirs of the 1st defendant (appealants) challenge the trial court’s partition of item No.1 and item No.2 in plaint B schedule, contending that the leasehold/purchase certificate obtained for item No.2 by defendants 1 and 2 does not automatically bind the plaintiff and other co-owners, since there was no challenge or declaration sought against that certificate. The respondent-plaintiff contends that the purchase certificate (Ext.B1) issued in favour of defendants 1 and 2, under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, confers a right that enures to all co-owners where the tenancy and occupancy originated from Krishnan, the father of both sides, and that the certificate is a conclusive proof of assignment subject to limited exceptions like fraud or lack of notice. The court examines multiple precedents (Ramakke & Ors. v. Gopi & Ors.; Viswambharan v. Sanu; Thayukutty v. Manikandan; Chandran Nair; Mathew v. Taluk Land Board; State of Kerala v. Mohammed Basheer) to decide whether Ext.B1 enures to all co-owners, ultimately holding that it does enure to the benefit of all co-owners and upholding the partition. The appeal is rejected, and the partition decree stands.
Crl.Appeal No.817 of 2023 This is a criminal appeal arising from Crl.Appeal No.817 of 2023 filed by eight forest department officials challenging an FIR in Upputhara police station (OR No.1/2022) registered for offences under IPC sections 341, 323, 294(b), 506, 330, 201 read with 34 and under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (as amended in 2015) sections 3(1)(p), 3(1)(e), 3(2)(va). The essential facts describe the seizure of wild animal meat from the second respondent’s autorickshaw during a check at Vanmavu Checkpost within the Idukki Wildlife Sanctuary. The second respondent, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, alleges assault, caste abuse, and false implication, prompting suspension of several appellants and later arrest. The appellants contend that the crime registration was under pressure from tribal/political groups and that the second respondent’s abuse and the alleged injuries were not borne out by medical records; they rely on Prathvi Raj Chauhan and a Kerala High Court decision to argue against false implication. The court evaluates the evidence, findings of the Divisional Forest Officer, and the procedures followed, noting discrepancies but also prima facie materials implicating the applicants under the SC/ST PoA Act for certain appellants. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed as to appellants 1–3, while appellants 4–8 are directed to surrender within two weeks, be interrogated, and, if arrested, be released on bail with bonds and solvency requirements and subject to witnesses’ protection and investigation co-operation. The decision reflects a careful calibration between safeguarding forest officers performing official duties and addressing alleged criminal proceedings against marginalized individuals, with procedural safeguards for the investigation.
This is a Kerala High Court bail application (B.A. No. 1080 of 2024) under Section 439 CrPC filed on behalf of three accused in Crime No. 64/2024 of Kodungallur Police Station, Thrissur, alleging offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 506(ii) and 427 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners—Muhammad Salih, Muhammad Musthafa @ Shafi, and Naufal—were arrested on 05.01.2024. The prosecution claims that on 01.01.2024, in furtherance of their common intention and with prior animosity toward the first informant, they assaulted him and his friends with a dangerous weapon, causing grievous injuries, and also caused destruction and mischief to the informant’s motorcycle amounting to about Rs.15,000. The petitioners contend they are innocent, have been falsely implicated, and that investigation is effectively complete with recoveries already made; hence further detention is unnecessary. The respondent State opposes bail citing criminal antecedents and incompleteness of the investigation. The court, after considering submissions and the cited precedents, notes the fundamental presumption of innocence and that bail is the rule, not the exception. It emphasizes case-specific assessment and humane treatment. Given custody since 05.01.2024, nearly complete investigation, and recoveries, the court grants bail with Rs.50,000 bond and two solvent sureties per petitioner, subject to conditions (appearance, no inducement or tampering, no new offences, passport surrender, possible cancel/modify of bail, and police recoveries as allowed). The order cites Sanjay Chandra, Dataram Singh, State of Kerala v. Raneef, and Sushila Aggarwal to anchor these principles.
Petitioners Bilkheez Beegum S., Mumthaz Beegum S., Shahinaz Beegum S., and Haneez Beegum S. approached the Kerala High Court under Article 226 challenging the death of their father, Shamsudheen, in 2017 and seeking directions including the constitution of a Special Investigation Team to probe the death and an investigation into an alleged bogus sale of a house. They allege that despite prior complaints there was no inquiry and contend that the death, occurring in hospital while the patient was on ventilatory support, warrants scrutiny in light of ongoing civil disputes between the family members. A statement by the Investigating Officer indicated that the death was due to natural causes—chronic kidney disease with comorbidities—and no postmortem was performed since death occurred in hospital. The SHO conducted a preliminary inquiry rather than registering an FIR, given the civil disputes and the hospital context. The petition invoked Article 226, but the court examined whether the information disclosed a cognizable offense, referencing Lalitha Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others to apply its guidelines on FIR registration and preliminary inquiries. Ultimately, the court found no illegality in the SHO’s actions, held that no cognizable offense existed, and dismissed the writ petition, underscoring the limited reach of Article 226 in such civil contexts and avoiding collateral criminal investigation.
This writ petition challenges the 79th Board Meeting decision of the Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode (IIMK) not to act further on the petitioner’s Exhibit P32 appeal and seeks reinstatement as Chief Finance Officer with back wages and continuity in service. The petitioner, Shiny George Ambat, joined IIMK in April 2015 after she was selected for CFO; after one year of probation she submitted APAR for 2015-16 and underwent induction training. She faced an inquiry into alleged financial irregularities after refusing to transfer funds without sanction, and a committee was constituted to examine the matter. She was suspended in December 2016 and a sequence of representations and appeals followed; she was ultimately relieved from service in February 2017 for unsatisfactory performance, and her Ext.P32 appeal before the Board was decided not to be pursued as she had already been relieved. The petitioner contends that the termination of probation violated the Central Civil Services Rules (as adopted by IIMK) and the CCS framework, arguing Article 311 and the applicable regulations. The respondents counter that the petitioner was on probation with no right to the post and that the action was a probationary termination, not punitive. They further contend that, post-2017, IIMs are autonomous and not “State” entities, limiting the Court’s jurisdiction. The Kerala High Court ultimately holds that IIMK is not a State under Article 12 and that maintainability of the writ petition cannot be sustained, dismissing the petition on this ground without examining the merits.
The present are Rent Control Revision petitions arising from a common eviction dispute in Kozhikode. The landlords filed petitions seeking eviction of tenant Faizal from shop rooms 27/312 and 27/311B on grounds of bona fide need to start an electrical business and related occupancies, invoking Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act along with the first and second provisos. The Rent Control Court granted eviction under Section 11(3), and the Rent Control Appellate Authority upheld that order in both RCA Nos. 121 and 122 of 2018 dated 31.01.2020. The tenant challenged the orders in Revision under Section 20 of the Act before this High Court. The petitioner contends that the first proviso to Section 11(3) should apply because the landlords possess other premises, a fact supported by evidence such as Exts.A5–A8 and related license details. The landlords argue that the first proviso has no application and the need is bona fide. In addressing the challenge, the High Court surveys a series of precedents on revisional powers and the interpretation of the provisos: M.L. Prabhakar, Ram Narain Arora, Vasantha Mallan, Dineshan Pillai, and other decisions, to elucidate the scope of provisos and the evidentiary burden. Ultimately, the Court dismisses the revisions but grants six months to vacate with conditions, balancing the bona fide need with the tenant’s right to time and safeguards.
The petitioner, Subrahmanian, is a guarantor for a loan advanced to the 4th respondent, Mamman, and challenges revenue recovery proceedings initiated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 by the 3rd respondent, Indian Overseas Bank. He contends the actions are time-barred by limitation, citing Exts. R3(b) (revival letter dated 24-11-2014 by the borrower) and R3(c) (revival letter dated 13-12-2012 by the petitioner) as acknowledgments of debt that extend the period under the Limitation Act, 1963, and argues that the bank could have pursued remedies under the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the RDB Act and, under SARFAESI, that proceedings against him should be barred. The respondents dispute the limitation claim, asserting that the acknowledgement binds the guarantor and that the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act proceedings are timely. They rely on SARFAESI and the relevant statutory framework to justify parallel or overriding remedies. The court analyzes the interplay of the SARFAESI Act (Section 37) and the RDB Act (Section 19 and Section 34), distinguishing authorities such as Sam J. Mathew (Supra) and Unique Butyle Tube Industries (Supra), and ultimately upholds the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, holding that the petition is unsustainable. The writ petition is dismissed, and the relief sought is denied.
The Kerala High Court heard WP(C) 34051/2022 concerning a ground-handling services concession at Calicut International Airport, awarded to Indothai Airport Management Services Private Limited. The petition challenged the Airport Authority of India’s decisions following Ext.P8 concession agreement, under which COD was due within 60 days of security clearance. The contract envisaged MAG payments and a staged transition to Commercial Operation, with the first COD target of 10 September 2021. COVID-19 disruptions and lockdown caused delays; the petitioners sought an extension of COD under the force majeure clause and argued that the AAI’s actions were unfair, arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(g). The respondents refused extension, issued show-cause notices, and later sought damages for alleged COD delay. The petition had been addressed in a prior order (Ext.P31) directing consideration of explanations, but Ext.P33 rejected the extension, citing DGCA circulars reinstating international operations. The petitioners eventually achieved COD on 9 June 2022, and the respondents issued demand notices for damages. The court examined whether the arbitration clause in Ext.P8 ousted writ jurisdiction, and whether the writ petition could be entertained in light of arbitration. It held Ext.P8 is not statutory and that disputes must be resolved through arbitration, dismissing the writ petition and leaving the parties free to raise contentions before the appropriate forum.
Vipinraj, aged 19, the sole accused in Crime No. 80/2024 of Aryancode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC. The FIR, dated 31.01.2024, accuses the petitioner of offences under IPC sections 294(b) (obscene acts), 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (causing hurt with dangerous weapon), and 308 (attempt to cause grievous hurt) following a confrontation with the defacto complainant rooted in prior animosity. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 02.02.2024 and contends innocence, alleging false implication; he argues that even if the FIR allegations are taken at face value, there is no material to establish grievous hurt and that he should be released on bail since the investigation is practically complete. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, noting that the investigation is nearly complete and that the Magistrate rejected bail on the ground of an overt act, with the concern that release could lead to tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Magistrate’s order had relied on the overt act aspect, and the state argued for continued detention until progression of the investigation. After considering the facts, the court finds that further detention is unnecessary given the progress of the investigation and lack of material to show risk of flight or tampering, and grants bail with conditions. The order invokes Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) to justify that investigators may continue to recover evidence even while on bail if warranted, and imposes standard bail conditions to ensure accountability while protecting the investigation’s integrity.
This is a bail application under section 439 CrPC filed by the first accused Mohammed Marzooq in Crime No.1029/2022 of Kasaragod Police Station, Kasaragod, registered for offences under sections 27(b) and 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner, arrested on 26.12.2022, contends innocence and false implication, with no criminal antecedents, and submits that he is ready to abide by stringent conditions if released on bail. The prosecution maintains that MDMA (Ecstasy) in a 40-gram quantity was recovered from the accused’s room, constituting a commercial quantity, thus attracting strict bail restraints under section 37 of the NDPS Act. Heard arguments from the petitioner’s counsel, I.V. Pramod and Saira Soura P., and the Public Prosecutor for the State. The court explains that section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates non-bailability for offences involving commercial quantity unless the court is satisfied on two twin conditions: (i) opportunity to oppose by the Public Prosecutor, and (ii) reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit any offence on bail. The court cites Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari, Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan, State of Kerala v. Rajesh and others, Union of India v. Ram Samujh, Durand Didier v. State (UT Goa), and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee to interpret this standard as requiring substantial probable grounds beyond prima facie. On applying this test and weighing the gravity of the NDPS offence, the court concludes there are no compelling grounds to relax the rigour of section 37 and dismisses the bail plea. The order reiterates Parliament’s aim to curb drug trafficking and protect society, ultimately holding that the application is dismissed and the petitioner must remain in custody.
This writ petition under Article 226 challenges audit objections and retrospective re-fixation of pension, DCRG and terminal benefits granted to the petitioner, who retired as Head Operator of the Kerala Water Authority. The petitioner’s service began as a Casual Labour in 1985, progressed to NMR, and he was absorbed into regular service in 2005. Pursuant to Ext.P2, a time-bound higher grade was awarded based on earlier service; Ext.P4 enabled NMR staff who were regularised to opt for a revised pay scale. The petitioner exercised an option changing the date from 01.05.1998 to 01.03.1997, which was accepted, and pay and allowances were fixed accordingly. Audit objections (Ext.P6) alleged irregularities in the option change and in counting CLR/NMR service for a time-bound higher grade. Based on these objections, pension, DCRG and CVP were refixed (Ext.P11) and further actions proposed (Ext.P14). The petitioner sought certiorari to quash Ext.P6 and Ext.P14 and mandamus to disburse full pension without deduction, with interest, and to hold responsible officers accountable for delays. The respondents contended that benefits arise only from the date of regularisation in 2005 and that CLR/NMR service is not regular. The court ultimately quashes the objections, relies on RCC v. Ganga Devi and Suresh Chandran to limit post-retirement actions, and directs immediate payment of pension and related benefits.
CRL.M.C. Nos. 2490 of 2014 & 4291 of 2017 This judgment of a single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court disposes of two connected criminal miscellaneous cases, CRL.M.C. No. 2490 of 2014 and CRL.M.C. No. 4291 of 2017, both heard together on 26 July 2024. The first matter arises from a final report in Crime No. 320/2008 and a subsequent order in Crl.M.P. No. 1701/2016 (C.C. No.256/2009), which involved adding respondents as accused and the magistrate’s use of Section 319 Cr.P.C. against all existing accused following a Section 258 Cr.P.C. disposition. The second matter challenges the orders annexed as Annexures E and G (25 October 2016 and 04 May 2017) that permitted adding new accused after the prosecution had been dropped for the original accused under Section 258 Cr.P.C. A constitutional bench decision of the Supreme Court, Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2022) 7 KHC 593, is relied upon to frame the issue of the proper invocation of Section 319 Cr.P.C. The learned Judge holds that invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the same day as a Section 258 Cr.P.C. disposition is improper when no accused remains and that the Magistrate becomes functus officio after a discharge or acquittal. Annexures E and G are set aside in 4291/2017, and no further order is necessary in 2490/2014; both petitions are disposed with a common order.”
BAIL APPL. NO. 1000 OF 2024 This is Bail Application No. 1000 of 2024 filed under Section 438 CrPC before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by Suneesh, the sole accused in Crime No. 58/2024 of Pazhayannur Police Station, Thrissur. The offences alleged against the petitioner include sections 406, 409, 420, 465 and 471 IPC, arising from alleged manipulation of fixed deposit receipts at the Thiruvillamala Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., where the petitioner served as head clerk from 28.07.2017 to 06.12.2023. Prosecutors contend that the accused forged customer signatures, deleted entries of new customers, and misappropriated Rs. 2,43,04,837, while running a mini-banking operation by granting loans to preferred persons using customer deposits. The defence claims total innocence, arguing he was only a subordinate employee acting under superior directions; the FIR was lodged only on 03.02.2024 for alleged manipulation spanning 2017–2023, and he contends that offences under 420 and 465 IPC are not attracted; he alleges scapegoating due to animosity from the bank’s President and Secretary after he lodged complaints. He seeks pre-arrest bail, arguing custodial interrogation is unnecessary and no recovery is required. The State and bank oppose, emphasizing grave economic loss, nascent investigation, and risk of tampering with evidence. Relying on precedents like Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, Sibbia, Jai Prakash Singh, and P. Chidambaram, the Court ultimately holds that no exceptional circumstances exist to grant anticipatory bail, denies the application, but directs surrender within 10 days for interrogation and possible subsequent consideration of bail by the jurisdictional court if surrendered; arrest may proceed otherwise.
Ramakrishnan, the 1st defendant, appeals under Section 100 read with Order XLII CPC against a trial court decree in O.S.1154/2008 (Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram) which declared the plaintiff's title over plaint A and B schedule lands and granted recovery of plaint C, with directions to demolish encroachments and to fix boundaries on the lines HJ (west), EF (east), and KJ (north-east) as per Ext.C2(a). The appellate court affirmed. The appellant contends that the plaint C schedule is described as 400 square links, but Ext.C2(a) locates C as 780 square links, with a portion of C allegedly within the second defendant’s house, thereby exceeding the plaint description and affecting possession. The plaintiff argues Ext.A2 shows 14 cents and Ext.C2(a) corroborates the location, justifying the decree and recovery of possession of C. The case turns on considerations of title, boundary demarcation, and any excess land included in the decree. The Kerala High Court, however, relies on established authority that a second appeal requires a substantial question of law and finds no such question arising from the contested issues. Consequently, the appeal is meritless and is dismissed without admission; all interlocutory orders are vacated and pending applications in this appeal are dismissed.
