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) 3405

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
LINU V.S. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 121 OF 2026|CRIME NO.996/2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.Subi K.
For the Respondents: Sri.M.C.Ashi

The presumption of guilt based on serious allegations and history of absconding justifies denial of bail.

Headnote:This bail application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant, accused in Crime No.996/2017, faces serious charges including premeditated acts of rape. The prosecution asserts strong evidence of intentional criminal acts while the defense claims false implication. Given the gravity of accusations, the applicant's repeated absconding, and ongoing trial, bail is denied. The bail application, accordingly, is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of charges and nature of the crime. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments concerning applicant's innocence and prosecution's claims. (Para 4 , 5)

ORDER

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 in Crime No.996/2017 of Adimaly Police Station, Idukki District. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code , Sections 66E , 67 and 67 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant fostered a relationship with CW1 survivor, thereafter repeatedly raped her, managed to capture her obscene videos and nude images, then uploaded the same in the internet and transmitted the same through social media platfoms and thereby committed the above said offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Subi K., the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior 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 Senior 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

17.11.2025. 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 released on bail several times and he absconded each time. Finally, he was arrested by a team constituted by the District Police Chief Police on 17.11.2025 and he is in judicial custody since then. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial of the case is going on. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant cannot be released on bail. 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