SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 437

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
ABHILASH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 14555 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.N.SATHEESH, SMT.PRIYA CAROL
For the Respondents: SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN.U, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Bail granted based on first offense status and lack of criminal history, with conditions set to prevent interference.

Headnote:The court analyzed the application for regular bail under the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the Indian Explosives Act, 1884, noting the appellant was a first-time offender. The prosecution alleged possession of explosives stored illegally. The court found primary allegations were established but acknowledged the appellant's lack of criminal history and time served since arrest, thus granting bail subject to specific conditions. The order emphasized ensuring that the appellant would not interfere with witnesses, appear when directed, and not engage in other offenses.

Table of Content
1. bail application based on first offender status and charge details. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments presented regarding innocence and prior conduct. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's deliberation on bail conditions and rationale for decision. (Para 6)

ORDER

Dated this the 7th day of January, 2026 This is an application for regular bail filed by the second accused in Crime No.898/2025 of Walayar Police Station, Palakkad.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

3. The prosecution case is that at 14:30 hours on

15.11.2025 during patrol duty, upon reaching the coconut grove belonging to one Chinnaswamy, Poolampara, five tipper lorries were found parked and beyond that a quarry was located, inside which two tractors and three excavators were seen operating. On inspection of the quarry, in the adjacent shed, officers recovered 3,503 gelatin sticks, 1,265 detonators, along with a battery, wire, and a plastic sack used for operating them. As these explosive substances were stored illegally without any licence or permit, the prosecution alleges that the accused persons knowingly kept the explosives in their possession for use in the quarry. Thus,the accused had committed the offence punishable Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 , and Section 9(B)(1)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 (Amendment 2013 & 2014).

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed regular bail to the petitioner, highlighting his custody since 16.11.2025 and his status as that of a first time offender. Apart from that, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has no involvement in the alleged offence.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, though opposed the bail application, he also conceded that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

6. On perusal of the records, the prosecution allegations are made out prima facie. But the petitioner is a first time offender and he has been in custody from 16.11.2025 onwards. Taking into consideration of the progress of the investigation and his custody from 16.11.2025, the petitioner can be enlarged on bail on the following conditions:

i. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional court concerned.

ii. The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co- operate with the investigation and shall be available for interrogation.

iii. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

iv. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

v. The petitioner shall not involve in any other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.

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