SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 17030

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
FAISAL SEBASTIAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 7283/2025



Advocates:
SMT.ALEENA ANABELLI A.
SMT.K.RAJESWARY
SHRI.ANIL PRABHA.K
SMT.NAVYA SUNNY
NOUSHAD K.A.

The court ruled that continued detention of the accused was unnecessary, allowing bail based on the nature of allegations and period of custody.

Headnote:

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 324(4), 110, 118(2), 115(2), 126(2) - Bail application - Accused alleged to have assaulted complainant, resulting in grievous injuries - Court considered nature of allegations and period of detention - Continued detention deemed unnecessary. (Paras 2, 3, 6)

(B) Bail - Conditions for grant - Court imposed conditions including execution of bond, appearance before investigating officer, and prohibition against influencing witnesses or leaving the country without permission. (Paras 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, sole accused in Crime No.452 of 2025, was arrested for allegedly assaulting the defacto complainant with a buffalo tethering rod, causing grievous injuries and damage to property. The petitioner has been in custody since 25.04.2025.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the continued detention of the petitioner was not necessary given the nature of the allegations and the period of detention already undergone.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the necessity of continued detention of the accused and the conditions under which bail could be granted.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that considering the nature of allegations, the period of detention, and the injuries inflicted, the continued detention was not warranted, thus allowing bail with specific conditions.

Result: This application is allowed on the following conditions: execution of bond, appearance before the investigating officer, and restrictions on witness intimidation and international travel.

Table of Content
1. details of the crime and arrest. - What are the facts surrounding the alleged crime? (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding the bail application. - What arguments were presented by the parties? (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's reasoning on bail considerations. - What observations did the court make regarding the case? (Para 6)

ORDER

This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.452 of 2025 of Nedumbassery Police Station, Ernakulam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324 (4), 110, 118(2), 115(2) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. According to the prosecution, on 25.04.2025, the accused is alleged to have assaulted the defacto complainant using a buffalo tethering rod, resulting in a nasal fracture and a deep injury on the head, apart from destroying a gold chain of the defacto complainant’s mother after inflicting injuries on her, and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 25.04.2025 and has been in custody since then.

4. Heard Smt. Aleena Anabelly A., the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Noushad K. A., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Due to the alleged assault, the defacto complainant sustained a nasal fracture as well as a deep injury on the head, of which the former is a grievous injury. However, Annexure-2 is an FIR registered pursuant to a complaint filed by the mother of the petitioner alleging offences committed by the defacto complainant as well as other persons in Crime No.452 of 2025. The date and time of the FIR in Annexure-2 and that in the present crime are proximate to each other.

6. Though the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that there are two criminal antecedents against the petitioner, considering the nature of allegations and also the injury allegedly inflicted upon the defacto complainant, apart from the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner, I am of the view that the continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary.

In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating ofÏcer as and when required.

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence or contact the defacto complainant.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(e) Petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top