Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Manoj, S/o. Balakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of fraud in subsidy provision. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. contextualizing the accused's involvement. (Para 4 , 7) |
| 3. dispute on validity of accusations. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. application of established precedent for bail. (Para 9) |
ORDER :
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
These bail applications are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime Nos.383 of 2025, 416 of 2025, 402 of 2025, 398 of 2025, 385 of 2025 and 412 of 2025, of Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur. Crime Nos.398 of 2025, 412 of 2025 and 383 of 2025 of Peramangalam Police Station are registered for the offences punishable under Section 318 (4) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, while the remaining crimes are registered under Section 420 r/w Section 3 4 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .
3. The allegations in all these cases are almost identical and they are as follows: The accused had collected large amounts of money from the de facto complainants promising them to be provided with scooters and other articles on a 50% subsidy from their CSR fund and assured that the articles will be supplied without delay. Howe
The court stressed on following principles laid down by the Apex Court regarding bail and interrogations, ensuring rights of the accused are upheld.
The necessity of arrest must be justified by police based on specific criteria, ensuring adherence to principles established in prior case law.
The police must justify the necessity of arrest based on established criteria, ensuring adherence to legal principles before detaining individuals accused of crimes punishable by up to seven years.
The necessity of arrest must be justified by police based on established legal principles, ensuring it is not arbitrary.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; arrest must be justified by necessity, emphasizing personal liberty.
The court emphasized balancing personal liberty against investigational rights, allowing bail for the elderly petitioner in light of health concerns and no flight risk.
The court held that mere assertions by the State regarding the need for custodial interrogation are insufficient; a stronger evidentiary basis is required to justify such measures.
The court emphasized that bail applications require careful consideration of personal liberty against the needs of police investigation and established trust in the accused to adhere to bail conditio....
The court emphasized the delicate balance between personal liberty and police investigation needs in non-bailable offences, granting bail based on the accused's age and health, while ensuring safegua....
Claims of innocence require substantial evidence; bail granted where custodial interrogation not necessary.
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
