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) 52059

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
VISHNU ALIAS HARI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 13618 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.A.JOHNSON
For the Respondents: SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA

The court established that bail can be granted despite serious allegations if conditions are imposed to safeguard the integrity of the investigation.

Headnote:This judgment concerns an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, addressing bail for the petitioner accused in Crime No. 337/2025. The petitioner was arrested due to a grave accusation involving intent to kill and subsequent physical harm against the complainant, stemming from financial disputes amid family enmity. The court found that the prosecution case was serious enough to warrant bail but set strict conditions to mitigate risks regarding witness tampering and further offenses. The final order permits bail with obligations for the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. accusations of serious intent to harm in a financial dispute. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments for and against the bail application. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court's assessment of bail eligibility based on case severity. (Para 8)

O R D E R

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

2. The petitioner is the accused No.1 in Crime No.337/2025 of Agali Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Section s 118 (1), 118(2), 109(1), 329(3) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .

3. The prosecution case as narrated in Annexure 2 order reads thus:

“There occurred a quarrel between the defacto complainant and the father of accused Nos.1 and 2 with regard to demanding back the money lent by the defacto complainant to the father of the accused Nos. 1 and 2. Due to that enmity, on 24.09.2025 at 07.45 am, accused Nos. 1 and 2 with intent to kill the defacto complainant, armed with deadly weapons like wooden stick and iron rod and trespassed into the courtyard of the house of the defacto complainant at Onthamala. Accused No.2 said that "kill him" and accused No.1 hit him on the back of the head with an iron rod. When the defacto complainant fell on the ground, both the accused persons hit him all over his body with the weapons, thereby caused injuries to the defacto complainant.” [sic.]

4. The petitioner was arrested on 25.09.2025 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 the investigation is practically over and further detention of the petitioner is not required.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner on the ground that the he has criminal antecedents and that the offences alleged are grave in nature.

8. I have gone through the Case Diary. The offences alleged against the petitioner are grave in nature. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, stage of the investigation and the tenure of judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on conditions.

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.

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