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) 5076

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
PRAVEEN KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 243 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.763/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN,SHRI.ANEESHRAJ R.,SHRI.VAISHNAV DATH S.
For the Respondents: SRI.M.C. ASHI, SR. PP

Pre-arrest bail granted under circumstances indicating lack of substantial evidence for custodial interrogation.

Headnote:This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail for the applicant who is accused No.1 in Crime No.763/2025. It is alleged that the applicant and another obtained a notable sum from the complainant under false pretenses regarding medical admissions. The court examined the submissions and evidence and concluded that the applicant's custodial interrogation is unnecessary, as no substantial evidence connects him to the crime. The findings determined that the applicant shall be granted bail under specific terms and conditions.

Result: The application is allowed.

Table of Content
1. filing of pre-arrest bail application under specified allegations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments presented regarding innocence and implications of bail. (Para 5)
3. court's observation on evidential connection and bail justification. (Para 6)

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime No.763/2025 of Koodal Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 3 18 (4) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that during the period from 10.3.2023 to 6.4.2024, the applicant along with the accused No.2 obtained an amount of ₹23,44,461/- from the defacto complainant on promising that they would secure admission for the defacto complainant's daughter to medical course at Columbus Central University in Belize. The amount was transferred to an account bearing No.201003799742 of the firm namely Bridge Medical Education. The accused persons after obtaining the said amount had retracted from their promise and not repaid the amount and thereby committed the offence. 4. I have heard Sri. Gokul D. Sudhakaran, 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 above crime. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the applicant's intentional criminal acts, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

6. Annexure 2 registration certificate issued by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises would show that the applicant is running an educational institution in the name and style as Bridge Medical Education at Chennai. The case of the prosecution is that, though the applicant offered medical admission at the Columbus Central University Belize, the admission was not provided. Instead, she was provided admission at the Common Wealth University. Annexure 3 would show that the applicant secured admission for the defacto complainant's daughter for a medical course in Columbus Central University, Belize. It is evident from the case records that after the 1st semester, the defacto complainant's daughter was transferred to the Common Wealth University. According to the applicant, the transfer was due to the restrictions imposed in travel and the same was done on the request of several students including the defacto complainant's daughter. Annexure 5 is the visa issued by the Saint Lucia Immigration Department. Annexure 6, No Objection Certificate, given by the defacto complainant would show that in fact, his daughter has accepted the course at Common Wealth University and she is studying there. Annexure 7 attendance report would show that the defacto complainant's daughter attended the course. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Considering the allegations made against the applicant, his custodial interrogation seems unnecessary. For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-

arrest bail to the applicant.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may be.

(ii) The applicant shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for discovery, if any, as and when demanded.

(iii) The a

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