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) 9413

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
HUGHES HENRY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 727 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK, SMT.POOJA P., SMT.ANUJAMOL V. S.
For the Respondents: SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP

The court determined that insufficient evidence warranted granting bail, emphasizing the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents.

Headnote:This application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail for the accused in Crime No. 364/2024 of Cheruthuruthy Police Station. The court found that the applicant, who has no criminal antecedents, was falsely implicated and the continued detention was not necessary, thus granting bail subject to conditions. The primary issues involved were whether the applicant's detention was warranted and the validity of the alleged crimes. The court reasoned that there was insufficient evidence to warrant continued custody and the application was allowed with stipulated bail conditions.

Table of Content
1. allegations of multiple offences including sexual misconduct and misappropriation. (Para 2)
2. court's observations and determination regarding the necessity of detention. (Para 4 , 6)
3. arguments presented by both applicant's counsel and the public prosecutor regarding bail. (Para 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.364/2024 of Cheruthuruthy Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 376(2)

(n), 316, 323, 354C and 506 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 02.01.2023, the applicant, on a promise of marriage, invited the de-facto complainant to Thrissur and took her to hotel named “Sreeraj Residency” at Amala Nagar, Adatt Grama Panchayat, where he had sexual intercourse with her. It is further alleged that on 03.10.2023 and on several subsequent days thereafter, the applicant performed sexual acts with the de-facto complainant at her rented flat situated at Vallathol Nagar Grama Panchayat. It is also alleged that when the de-facto complainant became pregnant, the applicant forced her to terminate the pregnancy. It is further alleged that the applicant misappropriated her gold ornaments and money, assaulted her, took her nude photographs and threatened her with dire consequences. Thus, the applicant is alleged to have committed the above offences.

4. I have heard Sri.E. Vijin Karthik, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.K.A. Noushad, 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 19.01.2026. The investigation is almost complete. A reading of the FIS would show that the applicant and the victim were in an intimate relationship, and they had sexual intercourse several times at various places. It is admitted that he used to come to her rented house two or three days a week at night and stay overnight. During that period, they had sexual intercourse. According to the victim, she consented to the relationship as the applicant had assured her that he would marry her, which is a matter of evidence. The victim is a divorcee. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. For these reasons, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required for any purpose. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

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

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail 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 jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

(ii) The applicant shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. He shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

(v) The applicant shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

(vii) The application, if

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