The court found sufficient grounds for granting bail under conditions, despite allegations against the petitioner.

K.BABU, J.

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

B.A No.14139 of 2025 ---------------------------------------

Dated this the 10^th 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 petitioner is accused No.9 in Crime No.1999/2025 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 351(2), 140(1), 115(2), 118(1), 324(4) and 110 r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

3. The prosecution case as narrated in order in Crl.M.C No.2962/2025 of the District and Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram reads thus:

“On 03.10.2025 at about 8.30 p.m., while the defacto complainant was standing with his friend at Pappanamcode Estate Road, accused Nos.3 to 6 wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, uttered abusive words against him and thereafter kidnapped him to a place near Puthencotta Cemetery Junction. Thereafter, at about 10 p.m., the 2 nd accused kicked the defacto complainant on his chest, and threw a stone on his chest and the 2nd accused using a knife, stabbed the defacto complainant on his stomach, but when he prevented the said attack using his left hand, it fell upon his left palm causing injury. Thereafter, accused Nos.7 and 8 restrained the defacto complainant and accused Nos.9 to 12 hit him on his chest and stomach using hand and stone. Then the 2nd accused by using an iron rod, repeatedly beat the defacto complainant on his right leg, and the 13th accused using a stone hit him on his head, causing an injury. It is alleged that, the defacto complainant lost a mobile phone and gold locket worth Rs.30,000/- in the incident.(sic)”

4. The petitioner was arrested on 22.11.2025 and he has been in judicial custody since then.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner contending that there are materials to establish the involvement of the petitioner in the crime.

8. Having regard to 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 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 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.