IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
LOGAMOORTHY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP(CRL.) NO. 757 OF 2025 | SC NO.935 OF 2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner faced charges under section 354 ipc. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court discussed issues with absence and surety arrangements. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court granted bail upon surrendering with old sureties. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the accused in SC No.935/2022 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-POCSO, Ernakulam, arising from Crime No.1140/2021 of Panangad Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 452, 354 and 308 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 .
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, now he stands charged only for the offence under Section 354 IPC . When the case was posted for judgment, he could not appear before the Trial Court as he had to urgently go to his native place in Tamil Nadu in connection with Deepawali. According to him, in the mean time, the learned Sessions Judge cancelled his bail bond and issued non-bailable warrant against him and also issued notice to the sureties. His prayer is to give a direction to the learned Sessions Judge to release him on bail, in case he surrenders before the Trial Court with the old sureties.
3. From the case details collected from the website of the Trial Court furnished by the petitioner, it is revealed that after the case was posted for judgment, the petitioner remained absent. It was in the above context, the learned Sessions Judge issued non- bailable warrant against the petitioner and his bail was cancelled. Finally on 8.10.2025, he surrendered and bail was granted and the case was posted for judgment to 13.10.2025. On 21.10.2025, he was absent and on his behalf an application was filed. The application was rejected and his bail bond was forfeited and non- bailable warrant was issued against him and also notice was issued to the sureties.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner belongs to the State of Tamil Nadu, it is very difficult for him to arrange fresh sureties.
5. Considering the entire facts, this O.P(Crl) is disposed of, with a direction to the learned Sessions Judge, Ernakulam that, in case the petitioner surrenders with the old sureties, he shall be released on bail with the above sureties and proceed to pronounce the judgment thereafter.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.