Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
Bijoy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.
These bail applications are filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).
2. Petitioners in B.A.No.5814/2025 are accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 while petitioner in B.A.No.5819/2025 is the third accused in Crime No. 388/2025 of Kollengode Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that, accused had, on 15.04.2025, pursuant to a quarrel with the members of the temple committee assaulted the de facto complainant and others using an iron rod and other weapons and caused serious injuries, and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was submitted that though the incident is alleged to have occurred on 15.04.2025, the crime is seen to have registered only on 17.04.2025, which itself indicates the falsity of the allegations. The learned counsel further submitted that the third accuse
Anticipatory bail considerations include the nature of the offence and necessity for custodial interrogation, with the State required to provide substantial justification for such interrogation.
The court held that custodial interrogation is not necessary despite serious allegations, allowing pre-arrest bail based on the circumstances of the case.
The Court's discretion for anticipatory bail hinges on the nature of offenses and necessity for custodial interrogation, requiring substantial justification from the State.
Court must evaluate the need for custodial interrogation against the nature of allegations when considering bail applications.
An anticipatory bail application cannot be denied solely based on the applicant's criminal antecedents, and cooperation with ongoing investigations can justify granting bail.
The court ruled that while serious allegations exist, custodial interrogation is not necessary for the accused, allowing pre-arrest bail with conditions.
The Court emphasized that custodial interrogation must be substantiated by necessity, not merely by prima facie case.
Court emphasized the necessity of evaluating the severity of the accused's actions when granting bail, particularly in relation to cumulative allegations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
