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) 21679

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
ASWIN K.S. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 1668 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.Shabu Sreedharan
For the Respondents: Smt.Sreeja V., SR. PP

Insufficient evidence and the applicant's cooperation with the investigation justified granting bail.

Headnote:This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail. The applicant, accused No.7, has been alleged to commit offences under Section 420 of IPC and Section 66D of IT Act by swindling money from the defacto complainant through an online job scam. The court found insufficient evidence connecting the applicant to the crime, thus determining that continued detention was unnecessary. The application for bail was granted on specific conditions.

Table of Content
1. application for bail under bnss. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding innocence and lack of evidence. (Para 5)
3. granting bail due to insufficient evidence and conditions imposed. (Para 6)

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 accused No.7 in Crime No.6/2024 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Section 66D of IT (Amendment) Act, 2008.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that during the period from 16.01.2024 to 21.01.2024, the accused with the intention to swindle money from the defacto complainant, offered him an online job and for that purpose, accused sent messages and his telegram account details for payment. It is alleged that as per the directions of the accused, the defacto complainant conducted various prepaid tasks and review tasks and had sent a total amount of Rs.5,28,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand only) from his various bank accounts to the accused. But the accused deceived the defacto complainant by not paying any remuneration for his online task and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Shabu Sreedharan, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.Sreeja V., 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.

6. The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 24.02.2026. The investigation is almost over. No specific overt act has been alleged against the applicant. For these reasons, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required for any purpose. 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.

(ii) The applicant shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. He shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

(v) The applicant shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of the bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

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