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) 13922

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
SUMAYYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 396 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.S.RAJEEV, SRI.V.VINAY, SRI.M.S.ANEER, SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R., SHRI.SARATH K.P., SMT.DIPA V., SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS, SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN, SHRI.AZAD SUNIL, SHRI.T.P.ARAVIND, SHRI.MAHESWAR PADICKAL, SMT.AKSHARA S.
For the Respondents: SRI.C.K. SURESH

The dismissal of bail emphasizes the significance of the nature of the crime and the gravity of the charges in bail considerations.

Headnote:The application for bail was analyzed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant, accused of serious crimes including murder and arson, sought bail on the grounds of innocence and insufficient evidence. The court emphasized the gravity of the accusations and dismissed the bail request, acknowledging the premeditated nature of the offense.

Table of Content
1. details on the gravity and nature of the charges leading to the bail application. (Para 2)
2. arguments presented by both sides regarding the bail application. (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.1084/2025 of Keezhvaipur Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 332 (a), 127(2), 311, 118(1), 326(g), 103(1) and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

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

9.10.2025 at about 4.30 pm, after having trespassed into the residential house of the defacto complainant, the applicant had demanded the jewellery worn by the defacto complainant which was refused by her. Then the applicant tied a piece of cloth around her neck, inflicted stab injuries on her face, set fire to the house of the defacto complainant, later she succumbed to the injuries sustained and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri. M.S. Aneer, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. C.K. Suresh, the learned Special 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, she is entitled to bail. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and she is not entitled to bail at this stage.

The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on

11.10.2025. The applicant aged 30 years brutally murdered her neighbour aged 61 years, who was a lady with disability. 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 her part. 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