Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 39447
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
JETHIN KRISHNA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 7570 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.474/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.ARCHANA V.C.
For the Respondents: SMT.SREEJA V., PP
The court ruled that absence of evidence showing that the accused had knowledge of the likelihood of death negates culpability for homicide.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Bail application filed by the accused in a case of alleged culpable homicide due to negligence in safety measures leading to death of a minor - It was held by the court that there was no prima facie evidence to indicate that the accused had the knowledge that the act of permitting the deceased to stay would cause death. (Paras 3, 4, 8, 10, and 12)
(B) On determining the conditions for anticipatory bail, the court should consider the nature and gravity of the offences, as well as the role attributed to the applicant. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The accused constructed tents and rented them without safety measures which led to the death of one of the occupants. According to defense counsel, the petitioner had no direct role in causing the incident.
Findings of Court:
The application for anticipatory bail was granted as there was no necessity for custodial interrogation under the circumstances.
Issues: The main points discussed were the prima facie evidence regarding knowledge of the likelihood of causing death and the conditions for granting anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for evidence that the accused had knowledge of the risk of death to substantiate a culpable homicide charge.
Result: Bail application allowed with conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. culpable homicide allegations in a tenant's death. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments for and against bail presented. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court finds lack of knowledge for culpability. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. considerations for anticipatory bail involve various factors. (Para 9) |
| 5. pre-arrest bail granted with conditions. (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).
2. Petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.474/2025 of Meppadi Police Station, Wayanad District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 105 r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 [for short, ‘ BNS ’]. Initially the crime was registered under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, and subsequently, the provision was altered to Section 105 of .
3. The prosecution alleges that the accused, in furtherance of their common intention to make unlawful financial gain, constructed tents without taking any safety measures and rented those structures to the defacto complainant and her friends for accommodation. In the early hours of 15-04-2025, while the occupants of the tents, which included the deceased Ms. Nishma and her friends were sleeping, one of the tents collapsed, resulting in the death of Ms. Nishma. Despite being rushed to the hospital, she was declared dead, and the accused committed the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 105 of BNS .
4. Adv. Archana V.C., on behalf of Smt.Celine Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution allegations do not make out an offence under Section 105 of BNS that too, against the petitioner. It was further submitted that the resort by name ‘Tent Gram Resort’ was owned by the first accused and the petitioner’s role was only limited to arranging stay and travel for tourists. According to the learned counsel, the deceased and her friends had booked their stay in the tent and petitioner had no role in the security of the tent and therefore, he cannot be roped in as an accused for the offences alleged. The learned counsel further submitted that even if the entire prosecution allegations are assumed to be admitted, still the offence as alleged is not made out, as the petitioner had no knowledge or intention to cause death. The learned counsel relied upon the decision in Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther and Another v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 2025 SC 1515 ] and contended that merely by permitting the deceased to stay in a tent, petitioner cannot be implicated with the knowledge that such an act would lead to the death of the deceased. It was thus argued that no offence as alleged is made out, and hence, petitioner ought to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Smt. V. Sreeja, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is the owner and operator of the resort and that his direct involvement is evident in the instant case. It was further submitted that without custodial interrogation, the entire details of the nature of the offence cannot be identified and hence petitioner ought not to be granted pre-arrest bail. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the first accused is yet to be arrested and therefore, if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is every chance that the first accused may remain aloof from investigation.
6. I have considered the rival contentions and have also perused the case diary.
7. The deceased and her friends are alleged to have booked the resort pursuant to an advertisement in the website of the resort. While they were staying in the tent, it collapsed at around 2 AM, resulting in the death of one of the residents inside the tent. The deceased was a young girl aged 24 years. Though she was rushed to the hospital immediately, she succumbed to the injuries. It is alleged that the resort did not have the necessary license to let the tents on hire.
