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) 50728

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
JOYEL MICHAEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Application No. 13305 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SARATH BABU KOTTAKKAL, SMT.ARCHANA VIJAYAN, SHRI.SEBASTIN
For the Respondents: SRI.SUDHEER, PP

Bail is granted under stringent conditions when the prosecution does not demonstrate the necessity for further detention.

Headnote:This judgment examines an application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner is accused of violating an order, with the prosecution arguing against bail due to criminal antecedents. The court finds the petitioner entitled to bail, setting specific conditions including bond and regular appearances before the Investigating Officer. The petitioner is directed not to tamper with evidence or commit similar offences during the bail period.

Table of Content
1. application for bail under relevant statute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments presented by both parties regarding bail eligibility. (Para 4 , 6 , 7)
3. court's decision on granting bail with conditions. (Para 5 , 8)

ORDER

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

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1742/2025 of East Police Station, Thrissur. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 15 (4) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act , 2007 (KAAPA Act).

3. The prosecution case as narrated in Annexure A2 order reads thus:

“On 03.10.2025, at 19.20 hours, accused entered into Thrissur City Thrissur East Police Station Limit, near ottappuram bridge, infront of Mothi Mahal bar disobeying the order No.B3-12315/2025/TSR dated 1.7.2025 of Thrissur Range Deputy Inspector General Officer for one year.” [sic.]

4. The petitioner was arrested on 03.10.2025, 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 the investigation is practically over and further detention of the petitioner is not required. The learned counsel submitted that he entered Thrissur City to visit his mother, who is suffering from some health-related issues.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents.

8. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and stage of the investigation, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on conditions.

9. In the result, the Bail Application is allowed as follows:

(a) The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

(b) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10:00 A.M. and 11.00 A.M. for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

(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 similar offence while on bail.

(e) If any of the bail conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional court will be at liberty to cancel the bail, in accordance with law.

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