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) 5523

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
JOSE PRAKASH D – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 440 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.207/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.VISHNU DAS, SHRI.ADARSH S., SHRI.SAMBHU KRISHNAN A., SHRI.BABIN XAVIER, SRI. SRUTHI DAS, SMT.MARIA NEETHU T.J, SMT.ANAGHA A.S.
For the Respondents: SMT.SREEJA V.

Bail denied due to serious allegations and criminal antecedents.

Headnote:This judgment pertains to an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail for the accused in Crime No.207/2025 for unauthorized possession and sale of liquor under the Kerala Abkari Act. The court found serious accusations substantiating the lack of bail entitlement, considering the gravity of the offenses committed by the applicant, including prior criminal involvement. The court determined that the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage due to the prima facie evidence of premeditated criminal acts and a history of similar offenses. The bail application is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. application for bail under specific legal provisions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments made by both parties regarding bail. (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 sole accused in Crime No.207/2025 of Nedumangadu Excise Range, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 8 (1) and 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant was found in unauthorised possession and sale of 20 litres of arrack, near the culvert at Kanyakulangara-Siyon Kunnu- Koonooru-Mukkampalamoodu Road, Siyon Kunnu Junction, Thekkada Desom of Thekkada Village in Nedumangadu Taluk at 3.45 pm on 14.12.2025 and thereby committed the above offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Vishnu Das, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.Sreeja V., 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

14.12.2025. 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 has criminal antecedents. He is involved in three other similar crimes. Considering the nature of the crime, the gravity of the offence, the complicity of the applicant in it, and the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that the applicant cannot be released on bail at this stage. 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