The court determines that continued detention is unnecessary and grants bail under specified conditions due to lack of evidence linking the applicant to the crime.

O R D E R

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.822/2012 of Nedupuzha Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on

26.08.2012, between 06:00 a.m and 7:00 a.m, with an intention to commit the murder of the wife of defacto complainant, the applicant trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, poured kerosene on her body and set her ablaze. Due to the severe burn injuries sustained, the wife of defacto complainant succumbed to death while undergoing treatment and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Vishnu Bhuvanendran, 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 initially granted bail by the trial court. However, since he remained absent on 22.10.2024, the trial court issued a Non-Bailable Warrant and he was re- arrested and produced on 26.08.2025. The learned counsel for the applicant made available to me a copy of the proceedings sheet, which shows that the applicant was present on 23.07.2024. However, he remained absent on the next posting date, i.e. on 13.08.2024. His absence was condoned on that day. On the next posting date, i.e. on 09.09.2024, the Judge was on leave and case was reposted to 05.10.2024. On 05.10.2024, the applicant was again absent. His absence was condoned and the case was adjourned to 22.10.2024. On 22.10.2024 also, the applicant was absent and the trial court issued Non-Bailable Warrant. It appears that the applicant remained absent on three consecutive posting dates. However, absent petitions were filed by the learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant has been in judicial custody from 26.08.2025. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that further detention of the applicant is not necessary.

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.