Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. Babu, J
KEVIN JAYESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Application No. 12418 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.RANJU MOHAN, M.SANTHI, THEERTHA NAIR A.P., PYARIN B. KURUVITHADAM, NIKITHA ANN VARGHESE
For the Respondents: G.SUDHEER - PP
Anticipatory bail may be granted when doubt exists regarding a person's mens rea related to the alleged offense.
Headnote:The application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 concerns the petitioner accused of causing grievous harm. The Court noted the ambiguity of the petitioner's mens rea, leading to the conclusion that anticipatory bail was warranted. The relevant query pertains to the legitimacy of the accusations against the petitioner. The Court emphasized its decision based on the presented evidentiary doubt regarding the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offense, concluding the bail application by granting anticipatory bail with specific conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. understanding the facts of the accused's involvement. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments contending the innocence of the accused. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on evidentiary ambiguities. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘ BNSS ’).
2. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.1135/2025 of Perookada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Section s 296 (b), 351(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .
3. The prosecution case is that on 05.09.2025, at about 09:15 pm, the petitioner and the other accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the defacto complainant and his friend.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no role in the overt acts alleged. Even according to the prosecution case, the petitioner hit on the defacto complainant’s stomach with his fist. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant and his friend assaulted him and his friends and as a counter blast, this crime has been registered.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the victims sustained grievous injuries in the incident. The petitioner relied on copies of OP cards and a complaint filed by the petitioner before the Station House Officer, Peroorkada Police Station, to substantiate his contention. The specific case of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in this crime.
7. The materials placed before the Court lead to the inference that there is some doubt as to the mens rea of the petitioner in the crime. The petitioner has not used any weapon.
8. Having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court feels that he is entitled to anticipatory bail.
9. In the result, the Bail Application is allowed as follows:
(a) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 29.10.2025 between 10.00 AM and 11.00 AM for interrogation.
(b) The Investigating Officer is directed to release the petitioner on bail, in the event he is arrested, on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.
(c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence.
(d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
