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) 15066

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
LINU V.S – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 1317 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.996/2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SUBI K.
For the Respondents: SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD

The denial of bail is warranted when allegations indicate a premeditated criminal act, as per statutory guidelines.

Headnote:The judgment concerns an application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharat Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with serious charges including rape and violations of the Information Technology Act. The court found no change in circumstances warranting bail after prior dismissal, determining that the allegations depicted a premeditated criminal act. Ultimately, the application was dismissed due to the gravity of the allegations.

Table of Content
1. serious allegations involve rape and technology misuse. (Para 2 , 3)
2. defense claims innocence; prosecution argues intent. (Para 5)

ORDER

This is the second application 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.996/2017 of Adimali Police Station, Idukki District. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66E, 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant fostered a relationship with CW1 survivor, thereafter repeatedly raped her, managed to capture her obscene videos and nude images, then uploaded the same in the internet and transmitted the same through social media platfoms and thereby committed the above said offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Subi K., the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. K.A.Noushad, 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 remanded to judicial custody on

17.11.2025. 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. 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. There is no change of circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail application by this Court on 28.01.2026. 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