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) 44139

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
SHAFEEQ C.C. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Application No. 11346 of 2025 | Crime No. 660/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.JAYARAM
For the Respondents: SRI. NOUSHAD K. A.

The court affirms that a lengthy detention without trial may be unjustified, leading to the granting of bail under specific conditions.

Headnote:This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.660 of 2025, alleged to have blasted the house of the de-facto complainant. The court finds that while the allegations are serious, the petitioner has been in custody since 23.08.2025, indicating further detention is unwarranted. The decision allows bail under specified conditions to ensure compliance and non-interference with the ongoing investigation.

Table of Content
1. bail applied under specific sections of law. (Para 1 , 2)
2. seriousness of allegations against the accused. (Para 3 , 4)
3. arguments regarding custody and bail. (Para 5)

ORDER

This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.660 of 2025 of Cherpulassery Police Station, Palakkad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 326(g), 329(3) and 324(2) of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhitha , 2023 and Sections 3(a) and 4(a) of the Explosive Substance Act , 1908.

3. According to the prosecution, on 22/08/2025, the accused with an intention to destroy the house of the defacto complainant blasted the kitchen door of the defacto complainant's house and tried to destroy the entire house by blasting 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 the petitioner has been in custody since 23.08.2025 and hence he ought to be released on bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

7. Petitioner is alleged to have set fire to a dwelling house.

Though the allegations are serious, considering the fact that petitioner has been in custody since 23.08.2025, I am of the view that further detention is not necessary.

In the result, this 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 Officer 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.

Sd/-

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