Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14843
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
SHIBU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 1103 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.1151/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.V.JEEVESH
For the Respondents: SRI.M.C. ASHI
Seriousness of allegations and premeditation in committed offences warrant denial of bail.
Headnote:This application involves an appeal for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant is accused of serious offences including attempted murder, specifically of harmful acts against a family member. The court finds the allegations serious, affirming the premeditated nature of the act and denying bail based on the gravity of the offence. Therefore, bail is not granted at this stage.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application concerning serious allegations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by both sides analyzed. (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.1151/2025 of Iritty Police Station, Kannur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 109 (1) and 124(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on
04.11.2025 at 6.45 pm, the applicant, because of the grudge against the victim who is his own nephew, in assisting his wife and children who are residing separately from him, called the victim to his house at Poomanam, Payam, with intention of causing his death, poured petrol and set fire to the victim causing burns all over the body and thereby committed the offences.
4. I have heard Sri. P.V. Jeevesh, 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 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.
The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on
5.11.2025. 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 is the uncle of the victim. The wound certificate would show that there were multiple thermal burns and third degree burns all over the body, involving the face of the victim. The victim has sustained permanent disability also. Hence, even though charge sheet has been filed, 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/-
