Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 25958
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
Anurag S @ Unnikuttan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 2008 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.55/2026 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.P.V.Dileep
For the Respondents: Smt.Sreeja V., Sr. PP
Bail granted due to lack of connecting evidence, completed investigation, and no criminal antecedents.
Headnote:The application under Section 483 BNSS seeks regular bail for accused No.2 in offences under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1) r/w 190 BNS arising from an assault by unlawful assembly causing grievous injuries. Court found no materials connecting applicant to crime, investigation nearly complete, and no antecedents. Arguments: Counsel claimed false implication lacking evidence; prosecution urged denial due to intentional acts. Ratio: Continued detention unnecessary post-remand with recoveries effected. Bail granted subject to conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution alleges unlawful assembly assault causing injuries. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on false implication versus intentional acts heard. (Para 4 , 5) |
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 No.2 in Crime No.55/2026 of Nooranadu Police Station, Alappuzha District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 189 (2), 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) and 109(1) r/w Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused persons have animosity towards the elder brother of the defacto complainant by name Ajesh. So, on 20.01.2026 at about 9:00 pm, they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly, at a place near Mangarath Colony Junction in ward No.XVI of Thamarakkulam Grama Panchayat, Chathiyara Village, assaulted the defacto complainant and his friend. The accused No.1 abused the defacto complainant in a derogative manner and struck on the middle of his head using a shock-absorber and thereby caused grievous injuries on the scalp. The applicant hit him with a sharp edged object on his back and the accused No.3 incessantly fisted on his face and head. When the defacto complainant tried to obstruct the accused from the attack against his friend, the accused No.1 beat on his back using the shock-absorber, causing rib fracture. Thereafter, the accused No.4 along with accused Nos.5 to 8, continued to assault the defacto complainant and his friend, fisted and stamped him with an intention of committing murder. Thus, the applicant committed the above offences.
4. I have heard Sri.P.V.Dileep, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.V.Sreeja, 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
23.03.2026. The investigation is almost over and the recovery has been effected. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. 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.
