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) 1806

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
JAYAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 14867 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SREERAJ M.D., SRI.RAHUL S.R.
For the Respondents: SRI.U.JAYAKRISHNAN, PP

Unlawful conduct and prior violations of bail conditions justify the dismissal of a bail application for serious offences.

Headnote:This application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS seeks regular bail for the accused implicated in serious offences under IPC and JJ Act. The prosecution alleges a premeditated attack with acid on witnesses. The court found the applicant's conduct in previous bail violations significant, leading to the denial of bail based on potential unavailability for trial. The bail application, accordingly, is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of bail application and serious nature of allegations. (Para 1 , 2)
2. counsel arguments regarding bail application. (Para 4 , 5)

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS ) seeking regular bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime No.2849/2020 of Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 307 , 326A, 324 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’) and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘JJ Act’).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 01.10.2020 at

09.05 p.m., the applicant poured acid on the bodies of witness Nos.2 and 3, inflicted grave injuries and attempted to kill them. The allegation against accused No.2 was that he abetted the commission of offences by the applicant. Thus, the applicant is alleged to have committed the above said offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Sreeraj M.D., the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.U.Jayakrishnan, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

6. The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on

05.08.2025. A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation against the applicant is very serious, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. The applicant was earlier released on bail. Thereafter, violating the bail conditions, he absconded for long. The trial court issued a non-bailable warrant against him, pursuant to which he was arrested on 04.08.2025. The trial of the case has already been scheduled. Considering the past conduct of the applicant, I am of the view that if he is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he would not be available for trial.

The bail application, accordingly, is dismissed.

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