Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 18036
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
MOHAMMED HASHIR C – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 6119/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.DEVESH, SRI.M.ANUROOP, SHRI.MURSHID ALI M., SMT.JYOTHIS MARY
For the Respondents: SMT. SREEJA V.
Bailable offenses under special law take precedence over IPC for the same charge.
Headnote:This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.698/2025 for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Sand Act. The court found that based on precedent, the alleged offence does not invoke a non-bailable charge.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application context and allegations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's observation on legal representation. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's reasoning based on prior case law. (Para 5) |
| 4. final determination regarding bail. (Para 6) |
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.698/2025 of Tirur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 [for short, BNS ] apart from Sections 20 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act , 2001 [for short, ‘Sand Act’].
3. The prosecution case is that on 23.04.2025, the accused transported river sand in a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-17/D-1939 in violation of the Sand Act, and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. In the decision inMohammed Noufal v. State of Kerala [(2021) SCC Online Ker 5858] , this Court has held that Sections 20 and 23 of the Sand Act are bailable in nature. It was also observed that, when a special law covering the question of theft of river sand has been enacted, the offence under IPC for theft of river sand cannot be attracted. After the coming into force of BNS Act, the relevant provision for theft is Section 303 (2) of . Petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence under Section
303(2) ie., theft of river sand.
6. In view of the decision in Mohammed Noufal’s case (supra), the offence under Section 303 (2) cannot be attracted. Since the remaining offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable, petitioner’s apprehension of arrest in connection with a non-bailable offence does not subsist.
Accordingly, this bail application is closed.
