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) 56611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
ASARUDHEEN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 13548 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.ATHUL TOM
For the Respondents: SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA, SR.P.P.

The court denies bail on the basis of seriousness of the charges and the petitioner's criminal history.

Headnote:This judgment pertains to a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner, accused No. 2, was involved in a criminal conspiracy to defraud others online. The court found that the petitioner had multiple pending cases and denied bail. The core issues concerned the petitioner's innocence and the seriousness of the alleged offences. The court ultimately determined the petitioner was not entitled to bail, resulting in the dismissal of the application.

Table of Content
1. application for bail under specific legal provisions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's status regarding custody. (Para 4)
3. arguments regarding petitioner's innocence and previous offences. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. court's decision based on overall circumstances. (Para 8)

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.2 in Crime No.1877/2025 of Kodungallur Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are punishable under Section 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

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

“The 1 accused, with the intention of cheating and fraudulently obtaining money from people through online means, entered into a criminal conspiracy along with the 2nd accused (a friend of the 1st accused) and the 3rd accused (wife of the 2nd accused), with the knowledge and consent of the 4th accused (mother of the 1st accused). Through the South Indian Bank, Azhikode Branch account belonging to the 4th accused, on 26.03.2025, accused Nos. 1 to 3 jointly received an amount of 3,79,500/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy-Nine Thousand Five Hundred only). Out of this, the 2nd accused received Rs.5,000/- from the 1st accused as a reward for his assistance. Thus the accused is alleged to have been committed the aforesaid offences.”(sic)

4. The petitioner was arrested on 03/10/2025 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 the petitioner is innocent of the allegations levelled against him.

7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner contending that the petitioner is the accused in many crimes registered in various parts of the country. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.122/2025 of Cyber Police Station, Jaipur and another crime registered in Visakhapatnam.

8. Having regard to the entire circumstances, I feel that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the Bail Application is dismissed.

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top