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) 45546

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. Babu, J
JITHESH BABU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Application No. 12726 of 2025 | Crime No. 24/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SRUTHYMON P.R
For the Respondents: SRI.G SUDHEER

A bail application can be denied based on the nature of accusations and investigation stage, irrespective of the accused's claims of innocence.

Headnote:Statutory provisions under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, are invoked in relation to bail discussions. The applicant, Jithesh Babu, contends innocence regarding allegations of defraud in cyber crime, specifically attracting penalties under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 66

(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Court determines the necessity of continued detention due to the severity of allegations and ongoing investigation. The applicant's bail request is denied accordingly.

Table of Content
1. application of bail under bnss. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments concerning innocence and necessity of detention. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's decision on bail denial based on investigation status. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)

O R D E R

This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.24/2025 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Kozhikode. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 66 (D) of the Information Technology Act , 2000. 3. The prosecution case as discernible from the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, is as follows:-

“The petitioner is arrayed as accused in the above crime alleging that between 23.06.2025 and 02.08.2025 somebody including the petitioner had induced the defacto complainant through WhatsApp groups to invest money in share market to earn profit. Believing the above inducement, defacto complainant had invested a total of Rs.35,21,079/- by different occasions. Subsequently, the victim realized that he was cheated by the petitioner and his associates. Since the petitioner is also alleged to have involved in the occurrence, he was made as accused.

[sic]”

4. The petitioner was arrested on 10.09.2025 and he has been in judicial custody since then.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is innocent of the allegations levelled against him and the further detention of the petitioner is not required.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in twenty five transactions, a sum of Rs.35,21,079/- was obtained by the petitioner from the account of the defacto complainant making him believe that the amount would be invested in the share market.

8. The Case Diary reveals that the petitioner defrauded the money from the defacto complainant and got credited to his account and withdrew the same during different occasions.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is only at the preliminary stage and the offences alleged are grave in nature.

Having regard to the stage of the investigation, I feel that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. Therefore, the Bail Application stands dismissed.

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