Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 54940
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
SATHEESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 13106 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.1338/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR, SHRI.ANEES.T, SHRI.SHAHIN BADUSHA
For the Respondents: SRI. G. SUDHEER-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
A prima facie case for anticipatory bail was established; certain charges were not applicable due to lack of required conditions.
Headnote:This case concerns an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners are accused in Crime No. 1338/2025 with allegations under various sections of the Arms Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The Court found that the allegations under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act did not apply and granted bail on conditions.
Result: The Bail Application is allowed with specific conditions pertaining to the investigation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for anticipatory bail under new statutory provisions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. charges against petitioners evaluated; certain allegations found inapplicable. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. conditions for bail placed on petitioners alongside scheduled appearance. (Para 8) |
K.BABU, J.
--------------------------------------
B.A No.13106 of 2025 ---------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2025 O R D E R This is an application seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023. 2. The petitiones are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1338/2025 of Punalur Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 27 (1) and 5(1)(a) of the Arms Act , 1959, and Sections 296(b), 329(3), 351(3) and 131 read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, as narrated in Annexure A2 order, reads thus:
“On 05.09.2025 at 8 p.m., the petitioners armed with swords had come in front of the residence of the 1st informant and called out her husband threatening that his wife and children wilt be killed. The petitioners created a situation of fear by threatening the 1st informant and her children. They had struck the gate, compound wall and footsteps of the residence using the swords. They had brandished the swords towards the 1st informant and her child. The 1st informant and the child were frightened. She had recorded the scenes in her mobile phone. Even after the incident, the petitioners are threatening the husband of the 1st informant. The reason for the incident is the refusal of the husband of the 1st informant to lend Rs.500/- demanded by one of the petitioners.”[SIC]
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The case of the petitioners is that the offence under Section 27 (1) of the Arms Act , the only non-bailable offence is not attracted, in view of the fact that the place of occurrence was not notified under Section 4 of the .
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the place of occurrence is not a notified area. Therefore, prima facie, the offence under Section 27 (1) of the Arms Act is not attracted. The remaining offences are bailable.
7. I have gone through the Case Diary.
8. Considering the entire circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner could establish a prima facie case for getting the benefits contemplated in Section 482 of the BNSS .
In the result, the Bail Application is allowed as follows:
(i) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer at 10.00 a.m. on 17.12.2025, for interrogation.
(ii) The Investigating Officer is directed to release the petitioners, on bail, in the event, they are arrested, on their executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.
(iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation.
(iv) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence.
(iv) The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
(vi) If any of the bail conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional court will be at liberty to cancel the bail, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
