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) 55670

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
NIDHIN RAJ M.S – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 14094 OF 2025|CRIME NO.893/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.M.H.HANIS, SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR, SMT.NANCY MOL P., SHRI.ANANDHU P.C., SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH, SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
For the Respondents: SRI.G SUDHEER, PP

Judicial custody duration warrants bail if conditions are met; bail granted with strict conditions to prevent influence or further offenses.

Headnote:The petitioners, accused Nos.2 & 3 in Crime No.893/2025, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, after being arrested for alleged severe injury to a victim. The court found the petitioners entitled to bail given their judicial custody tenure, imposing conditions including bond execution and witness non-interference. The final outcome allows bail with specific conditions to ensure compliance.

Table of Content
1. details of the case and judicial custody. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments for and against bail. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court's decision on bail conditions. (Para 8)

K.BABU, J.

--------------------------------------

B.A No.14094 of 2025 ---------------------------------------

Dated this the 10th day of December, 2025 O R D E R This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.893/2025 of Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam. The offences alleged against the petitioners and the other accused are punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 110 r/w Section

3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

3. The prosecution case as narrated in Anx.A order reads thus:

“The second petitioner works in a workshop, and the victim had disclosed to his co-workers an earlier suicide attempt by the third accused. Out of this animosity on 11.11.2025 at about 08.30 p.m. near K.R. Narayanan road, the first accused using a beer bottle hit the victim on his head. When the victim fell down he was stabbed on his abdomen causing an injury. The second petitioner herein then punched the victim on his face. Seeing this, one Anandhu, a friend of the victim had interfered and then the first petitioner using a beer bottle hit him on his head. And then all three of the assailants pushed Anandhu against a wall.

The first petitioner, using a broken bottle, stabbed on his back, causing an injury with later required sutures. The acts of the accused was with the knowledge that if they caused death, will be guilty of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. (sic)”

4. The petitioners were arrested on 14.11.2025 and they have been in judicial custody since then.

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

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the allegations levelled against them.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioners.

8. Having regard to the tenure of judicial custody undergone by the petitioners, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail on conditions.

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

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

(b) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays between 10 A.M. and 11 A.M. for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

(c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence.

(d) The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

(e) 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/-

K.BABU, JUDGE KAS APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14094 OF 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.M.P NO.

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