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) 45831

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
SARATH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 9883 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.636/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.NIREESH MATHEW, SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL, SRI.BABU JOSE, SHRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT, SHRI.ATHUL POULOSE, SHRI.AKHIL GEORGE
For the Respondents: SRI. PRASANTH M.P.

Bail may be granted if continued detention is unnecessary, with appropriate conditions imposed to ensure compliance.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 296(b), 110 r/w Section 3(5) - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 92(b) - Petitioner, accused in a crime involving assault on a person with disabilities, seeks bail after being in custody since arrest. The court found that further detention was not necessary due to the duration of custody already undergone. (Paras 6, 7, 8)

(B) Bail - Conditions for grant - The court imposed conditions for the bail, including the execution of a bond, appearance before the Investigating Officer, non-intimidation of witnesses, and prohibition from leaving India without court permission. (Paras 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of assaulting a defacto complainant who has disabilities. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested and has been in custody since July 28, 2025.

Findings of Court:
The court observed the necessity of the petitioner’s continued detention and concluded that bail ought to be granted considering the duration of custody.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be released on bail after a substantial period of custody.

Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that continued custody was not essential citing the period already served and laid conditions for the bail to ensure compliance and prevent further crimes.

Result: This application is allowed on specified conditions.

Table of Content
1. facts surrounding the charges against the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's observations on the necessity of bail. (Para 4)
3. arguments made by counsel regarding the case. (Para 5 , 6)
4. conditions of bail and decision to grant. (Para 8)

ORDER

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

2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 636/2025 of Kodakara Police Station, Thrissur district, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(1), 296(b) and 110 r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’) and Section 92 (b) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act , 2016.

3. According to the prosecution, on 27.07.2025 at 06.00 pm, while the defacto complainant who is blind in one eye and a person whose right index finger is amputated was cleaning the waste in the front portion of his house, the 2nd accused verbally abused him and the 1st accused using a weapon assaulted him on the head which was evaded, if not, it would have resulted in his death, and thus the accused committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on

28.07.2025, and he has been in custody since then.

4. I have 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 in custody since 28.07.2025, and he ought to be released on bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 7. Petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the defacto complainant, who is a person with disability since his index finger has been amputated and is also blind in one eye. Though the petitioner contends that he had filed Crime No.635/2025 of Vadakara Police Station and the present crime is in retaliation of the said F.I.R, I am of the view that considering the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, further detention is not necessary. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

8. 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 Officer as and when required.

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

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

(e) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

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