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) 48887

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
THANSEER K M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 10190 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SADIQALI. M, SMT.DHANYA S NAIR, SHRI.SHAMNAD.E., SHRI.MOHAMED SHAFI M., SHRI.MUHAMMAD SABIK
For the Respondents: SMT. SREEJA V., PP

Bailable offences under specific statutes negate the application of non-bailable charges for similar offenses.

Headnote:The bail application was filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner, accused in a case relating to the theft of river sand, contested the charges based on the legal framework of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court determined that the offending provisions of law relating to the alleged non-bailable offence were not applicable, thereby matching with previous findings in related case law. Legal issues surrounding the bail provisions were duly noted, leading to a resolution on the merits of the bail application. The court ruled that the bail application is hereby closed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case surrounding the bail application. (Para 1 , 2)
2. legal arguments presented regarding the nature of charges. (Para 4)
3. court observations on the legal statutes applied. (Para 5)
4. court's ruling based on the application of law. (Para 6)

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.1323 of 2025 of Tirur Police Station, Malappuram, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 05 (e) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short, ‘ BNS ’), apart from Section 20 r/w Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act , 2001 (for short, ‘the Sand Act’).

3. According to the prosecution, the accused had, on

16.08.2025, transported river sand in a tipper lorry bearing registration No. KL-10 AA 1752, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. In the decision inMohammed Noufal v. State of Kerala [ (2021) SCC Online Ker 5858 ], this Court has held that Sections 20 and 23 of the Sand Act are bailable in nature. It was also observed that, when a special law covering the question of theft of river sand has been enacted, the offence under IPC for theft of river sand cannot be attracted. After the coming into force of BNS Act, the relevant provision for theft is Section 305 (e) of . Petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 305 (e) ie., theft of river sand.

6. In view of the decision inMohammed Noufal’s case (supra), the offence under Section 305 (e) of BNS cannot be attracted. Since the remaining offences alleged against the petitioner is bailable, petitioner’s apprehension of arrest in connection with a non-bailable offence does not subsist.

Accordingly, the bail application is closed.

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