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) 46248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
P. Munavar @ Muthu – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Bail Application No. 10611 of 2025 | Crime No. 810/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellant: Sri.K.Rakesh
For the Respondents: Sri.Prasanth M.P.

Bail recognized despite serious allegations and prior criminal history, emphasizing detention time as a factor for granting bail.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bail application filed by the accused under the new criminal code. - Accused is alleged to have abducted and assaulted the complainant’s brother, causing injuries and theft. - Prosecution opposed bail citing prior offenses. - Despite serious allegations and antecedents, considering the period of detention, bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1-7)

(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must provide substantial basis for opposing bail, which it didn’t sufficiently establish in this case. (Paras 5 and 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of serious crimes including abduction and assault, with a notable history of criminal activity. The bail was sought based on prior incarceration since his arrest in July 2025, arguing false allegations and long detention.

Findings of Court:
The court balanced the serious nature of allegations against the significant time already served in detention, deciding in favor of granting bail.

Issues: The main issues included whether prior criminal activity warranted denial of bail considering the specific facts of this case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that prior criminal antecedents, while serious, should not restrict bail if the current application meets the legal requirements; the significant period in custody was a factor favoring release.

Result: Bail granted.

Table of Content
1. bail application filed under new criminal code. (Para 1 , 2)
2. allegations of abduction and assault leading to bail hearing. (Para 3 , 5)
3. court's decision to grant bail despite opposition. (Para 4 , 7)
4. opposition to bail based on prior offenses. (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 fifth accused in Crime No.810 of 2025 of Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 140(1), 140(3), 109, 61(2), 127(7), 118(2) and 311 r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. According to the prosecution, on 13.07.2025, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, abducted the de facto complainant’s brother and assaulted him with a wooden stick and an iron rod, causing serious injuries and also robbed him of his mobile phone and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2025 and he has been in custody since then.

4. Heard Sri.K.Rakesh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Prasanth M.P., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution allegations are false and that petitioner has been in custody from 21.07.2025 and he ought to be released on bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is involved in five other crimes, of which three are the offences committed under the NDPS Act, while one is for an offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and, therefore, petitioner ought not to be released on bail.

7. Petitioner, along with other accused, is alleged to have assaulted the brother of the de facto complainant after restraining him. An iron rod was also used to inflict serious injuries on him. Though the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that petitioner has other criminal antecedents, which are serious in nature, considering the nature of allegations in the present case, as also the period of detention already undergone by him, those antecedents need not deter this Court from grating bail to the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner ought to be released on bail.

In the result, this bail 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 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 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