Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 47401
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
BROMIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Application | 9346 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.N.SURESH, SHRI.YEDU KRISHNA S., SMT.AISWARYA UNNIKRISHNAN, SMT.INDU MENON M.
For the Respondents: SRI. NOUSHAD K. A.
Bail granted despite serious allegations due to lack of necessity for custodial interrogation, emphasizing context over prior records.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) r/w Section 3(5) - Bail application - Allegations included assault and attempted drowning over a monetary dispute - Court determined that custodial interrogation was not required due to the nature of the injuries, which were not grievous, and the circumstances surrounding the allegations. (Paras 2, 8)
(B) Bail - Principles to consider - The gravity of allegations, necessity of custodial investigation, and roles of applicants are critical in bail consideration - Courts have a degree of discretion, which is context-dependent. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, accused in a violent altercation over a financial dispute, claimed false implication by the prosecution. The first accused has prior allegations against him, but the court found that custodial investigation was not necessary. The nature of injuries sustained by the defacto complainant was also assessed.
Findings of Court:
Bail granted under certain conditions, requiring petitioners to cooperate with investigation.
Issues: Should bail be granted in light of the allegations and prior records of the accused?
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the need for custodial interrogation was not justified given the nature of the injuries and the context of the dispute, emphasizing that previous records do not alone warrant denial of bail.
Result: Bail application is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the offences and the context behind the allegations. (Para 2 , 3 , 7) |
| 2. arguments for and against the necessity of bail. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's assessment of the seriousness and requirements for bail. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. rationale behind allowing bail despite serious allegations. (Para 10) |
| 5. conditions imposed for bail. (Para 11) |
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.574/2025 of Njarakkal Police Station, Ernakulam; registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(1) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 18.05.2025, in order to wreak vengeance against the defacto complainant, first petitioner pushed the defacto complainant to the nearby thodu and the second petitioner inflicted a stab injury with a knife on his back, while the first accused attempted to stomp the defacto complainant down into the water, and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have been falsely arrayed as accused and that they have no involvement in the alleged crime.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature and custodial interrogation is essential. It was further pointed out that the first petitioner is involved in two other crimes.
7. A reading of the FIR reveals that the accused had lend money to the defacto complainant, and when the said amount was not returned, the accused allegedly abused the defacto complainant. Thereafter the complainant came to the house of the accused to question the said conduct resulting in an assault on the defacto complainant, who was also stabbed with a knife, pushed into the water and subsequently pressed him down in the water with the feet.
8. Though the allegations are serious, it is noticed that even the prosecution case itself is that the accused had demanded return of the money, borrowed by the defacto complainant and when he refused to repay the amount, the accused abused and subsequently assaulted him. Since the entire allegations revolve around the demand of money due to the petitioners from the defato complainant; I am of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary. I am fortified in the above view in the light of the nature of injuries inflicted, which were pointed out as aberrations and lacerated wound over the scapula, and are not grievous injuries.
9. InSushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [(2020) 5 SCC 1] , it was held that while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.
10. On a consideration of the circumstances arising in the case, this Court is of the view that though the allegations are serious in nature, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Though the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the first petitioner is involved in two other crimes, I am of the view that those antecedents need not deter this Court from granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in the present case.
11. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:
(a) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating OfÏcer on
29.08.2025 and shall subject themselves to interrogation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating OfÏcer proposes to arrest the petitioners, then, they shall be released on
