Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 43754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
MUHAMMED ARSHID ABDUL HAMEED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Application No. 11279 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.MAAROOF, SMT.NAFIYA SHAHALA C.K.
For the Respondents: SRI.K.M.FIROZ, SMT.M.SHAJNA, SMT. SREEJA V
The court decided that while serious allegations exist, the necessity for custodial interrogation was not sufficiently justified under the prevailing circumstances, allowing for anticipatory bail.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Bail Application - Accused sought anticipatory bail related to serious allegations including outraging modesty and threats - Court considers prior criminal incidents involving the complainant’s husband and animosity between the parties. (Paras 2, 4, 9, 10, 12)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - Considerations for granting anticipatory bail include gravity of offenses and necessity of custodial interrogation - State must show prima facie necessity for investigation justifying refusal of bail. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The accused is charged with severe offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, rejecting claims of false accusation based on animosity and opposing prior arrests and court orders concerning involved parties.
Findings of Court:
While allegations are serious, the need for custodial interrogation is outweighed by previous legal contexts and the relationship between the parties.
Issues: The court addressed whether the need for custodial interrogation was justified considering prior interactions and animosities between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled on the discretionary nature of granting anticipatory bail, emphasizing prior legal contexts and the necessity basis for further investigation was not sufficiently demonstrated by the State.
Result: Bail granted with conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the application is rooted in allegations of serious crimes against the petitioner. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. prosecution insists on custodial interrogation based on the severity of allegations. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. the court highlights the contextual background of animosity and necessity for judicial discretion in granting bail. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. conditions for bail reflect the court’s balance of justice and safety in light of allegations. (Para 12 , 13) |
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.728/2025 of Neeleswaram Police Station, Kasargode, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 3 29 (3), 296(b), 115(2), 126(2), and 118(1), r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 27.08.2025 the accused had barged into the sit out of the house of the defacto complainant, uttered obscene words, threatened to kill her, grabbed her arms and chest, and tore her dress and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused and that he has no involvement in the alleged crime. The learned counsel also submitted that the entire prosecution allegations are false and no such incident as alleged had occurred. According to the learned counsel, defacto complainant’s husband is an accused in Crime No.547/2025 of the Neeleswaram Police Station, and his application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Sessions Court on 25.08.2025, subsequent to which he was arrested and due to the said vengeance this false case has been registered. It was also submitted that though petitioner is an accused in Crime No.479/2025 of Neeleswaram Police Station, where this Court had rejected his bail application, the Supreme Court had directed that petitioner should not be arrested and issued notice, which was directed to be served on the defacto complainant in Crime No.479/2025. Notice was attempted to be served for which purpose petitioner went into the house of the defacto complainant. The learned counsel further submitted that the allegations regarding outraging the modesty of the defacto complainant, tearing her dress and touching her breast are all falsely raised solely for the purpose of ensuring that the petitioner is also arrested and put in jail.
5. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant on the other hand submitted that petitioner’s pleadings itself indicate that he had come to the house of the defacto complainant. and therefore, the allegations raised against him are matters which require custodial interrogation during the course of investigation. It was further submitted that the act of outraging the modesty of the victim by tearing her dress, catching hold of her breasts and assaulting her, necessitate custodial interrogation.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are involved in two other crimes and that investigation is going on into these matters. It was further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of completing the investigation.
7. I have considered the rival contentions and have perused the FIR.
8. Petitioner and the defacto complainant’s husband are involved in Crime No.547/2025 and Crime No.479/2025, both registered at Neeleswaram Police Station. The defacto complainant’s husband was arrested in connection with a crime registered against him. Though petitioner’s application for anticipatory bail was rejected by this Court, he obtained an order from the Supreme Court not to be arrested. Obviously there is an indication of an element of animosity between the parties.
9. The allegations in the present crime are that the accused had, on
27.08.2025, trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, caught hold of her breasts and tore her dr
