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) 9562

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
HARI SREESHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 965 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL
For the Respondents: PP.SRI.M.P.PRASANTH

The requirement for documentation to establish employment and relationships is crucial in reconsideration of bail applications.

Headnote:This Criminal Miscellaneous Case involves the petitioners, who are accused Nos.8 and 9 in C.C No.307/2024, seeking bail and exemption to resume employment abroad. The Trial Court rejected their applications due to lack of evidence verifying their employment status and relationship. The Court found no errors in the Trial Court’s order but directed reconsideration based on a Resident Identity Card proving the first petitioner's employment in the UAE. Key legal issues include the sufficiency of documentation for establishing employment and marital relationship. Ultimately, the earlier order was quashed with directions for the Trial Court to reconsider the applications as per law with proper documentation produced by the petitioners.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek bail and exemption. (Para 1 , 2)
2. hearing and considerations before the court. (Para 3)
3. court's directive for reconsideration. (Para 4)

ORDER

Dated this the 12th day of February, 2026 The petitioners are accused Nos.8 and 9 in C.C No.307/2024 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery (‘Trial Court’, in short).

2. The petitioners have stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that they were enlarged on bail by the Trial Court. Subsequently, they filed separate applications seeking permanent exemption to resume to their employment abroad. However, by the impugned Annexure A3 order, the Trial Court has rejected the applications on the ground that there is no material to substantiate that the petitioners are employed abroad. Annexure A5 Resident Identity Card clearly reveals that the 1st petitioner is employed abroad. The 2nd petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner. Annexure A3 order is erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not produced Annexure A5 document before the Trial Court. There are also no materials on record to prove that the petitioners are husband and wife. Thus, I do not find any error in Annexure A3 order passed by the Trial Court. Nonetheless, considering Annexure A5 document produced before this Court, which shows that the 1st petitioner is having a Resident Card in the United Arab Emirates, which is valid from 17.07.2025 to 16.07.2027, and the assertion that the 2nd petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner, I am of the definite view that the Trial Court is to be directed to reconsider the applications, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, I allow the Crl.M.C in the following manner:-

(i). Annexure A3 order is quashed.

(ii). The Trial Court is directed to reconsider the applications filed by the petitioners, provided, petitioners produce Annexure A5 document and other materials to establish the relationship between the petitioners.

(iii). If such documents are produced, the Trial Court is directed to reconsider the applications filed by the petitioners, in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible.

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