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) 32096

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
ROYSON JOYEL D'SOUZA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Application|B.A. No. 7303 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.MADHU, SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI, SHRI.RENJISH S. MENON, SMT.AVANTHIKA R., SHRI.KARTHIK KRISHNA M.
For the Respondents: SRI. M.P.PRASANTH

The court denied anticipatory bail based on serious allegations and the nature of the injuries inflicted upon the defacto complainant.

Headnote:This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning the petitioner accused of assaulting the defacto complainant with a knife due to enmity. The court found the nature of injury serious and against anticipatory bail. The issue framed was whether the petitioner should be released on bail considering the allegations. The court determined that the severity of the injuries warranted the dismissal of the bail application verbatim. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petition filed under section 482 of the bnss. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments presented by both sides regarding the bail application. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's reasoning against granting bail. (Para 7)

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.414 of 2025 of Badiadukka Police Station, Kasaragod, registered for the offences punishable under sections 329(4), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) & 110 of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhitha , 2023.

3. According to the prosecution, due to a previous enmity, the accused had, on 25.05.2025, assaulted the defacto complainant by stabbing her with a knife and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused and that he has no involvement in the alleged crime.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

7. Petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the defacto complainant with a knife since she allegedly backed out of her relationship with him. The injury inflicted on account of the assault is serious in nature and the defacto complainant was admitted in the hospital with the stab injury.

Considering the nature of allegations and the injury inflicted, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

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