Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 47573
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
SAINUDHEEN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 6495 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SADIQALI. M, MUHAMMAD SABIK, PRAGEENA A.P., MOHAMED SHAFI M.
For the Respondents: SMT. MAYA M.N.
The court may grant bail conditionally, considering the nature of offences and applicant's circumstances.
Headnote:The petition for bail is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for offences under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The petitioner missed a mandated appearance due to urgent travel. The prosecutor opposes the bail citing serious allegations. The court grants anticipatory bail conditional upon cooperation with investigation.
Result: Application allowed under stipulated terms.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the charges and failure to appear. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments relating to the conditions for bail. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. considerations for anticipatory bail applications. (Para 7) |
| 4. court's decision on bail based on circumstances. (Para 8) |
| 5. conditions imposed for bail eligibility. (Para 9) |
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.768/2025 of Tirur Police Station, Malappuram Disrict; registered for the offences punishable under Sections 15 (4) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 .
3. The prosecution case is that, the accused was bound to report every Sunday between 9 am to 11 am, as per the order issued by the KAPPA Advisory Board, for a period of six months. Petitioner failed to appear on 04.05.2025 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 failed to appear on 04.05.2025 on account of his urgent travel to Malaysia. It was further submitted that petitioner had filed an application on 22.04.2025 for modification of the condition to enable him to travel abroad. However, the said application was not taken up during summer vacations, and therefore, petitioner failed to abide by the said condition.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature.
7. 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.
8. On a consideration of the entire circumstances arising in the case, I am of the view that petitioner can be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in the aforementioned crime.
9. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:
(a) In the event of the petitioner being arrested in Crime No.768/2025 of Tirur Police Station, Malappuram Disrict;, he 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 before the Investigating OfÏcer.
(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating OfÏcer for interrogation if he is so required in writing and shall co-operate with the investigation.
(c) Petitioner shall not commit any other similar offences while he is on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.
