Bail granted considering no injuries, settlement affidavit, detention period, and advanced investigation stage despite serious threat allegations.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN TH TUESDAY, THE 28 DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 8TH VAISAKHA, 1948 BAIL APPL. NO. 2143 OF 2026 CRIME NO.287/2026 OF Ottapalam Police Station, Palakkad PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

1 RANJITH AGED 27 YEARS S/O.KOMALAVALLY, CHIRAKKALPADI HOUSE, PANAMANNA SOUTH, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679501 2 MAHESH AGED 26 YEARS S/O.MATHILAZHAKAN, KALATHIL HOUSE, PANAMANNA SOUTH, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679501 BY ADV SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 2 APARNA AGED 24 YEARS W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, CHAKKIYAVIL HOUSE, AMBALAVATTOM, PANAMANNA, ANANGANADI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 679501 SMT. MAYA M. V., P. P.

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

28.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This application seeking regular bail has been filed by accused Nos.1 and

2 in Crime No. 287/2026 of Ottappalam Police Station, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 329(1), 351(2), 190 and Section 333 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”) and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 31.03.2026 at 20.35 hours, accused Nos. 1 to 7 in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into the courtyard of the rented house of CW1 with dangerous weapons and rang the calling bell of the said house. Hearing the commotion, when the de facto complainant came out of the house, the first accused, who was holding a sword in his hand, threatened that he would do away with her husband if her husband did not repay the amount which he had borrowed. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed the aforementioned offences.

3. Heard Sri. Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Maya M. N., the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are wholly innocent of the allegations levelled against them. According to the learned counsel, ingredients to attract an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act are wanting in this case. The learned counsel further urged that the matter involved in this case had been settled between the de facto complainant and the petitioners, and the de facto complainant had already filed an affidavit stating that she has no objection in granting bail to the petitioners.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, emphasizing the grave nature of the offences alleged against the petitioners.

6. The allegation that the petitioners, along with the other accused, trespassed into the courtyard of the rented house of the de facto complainant with dangerous weapons and threatened the de facto complainant, a lady, cannot be viewed lightly. Anyhow, as evident from the records, apart from threatening the de facto complainant, no injuries had been inflicted on her. Although the same is not a justification for the criminal act perpetrated by the petitioners, the same can also be taken note of while considering the present bail application. Moreover, an affidavit sworn by the de facto complainant stating that the said case was filed on some misunderstanding and she has no objection to granting bail to the petitioners is also seen produced along with this bail application. The said fact also has a considerable bearing while considering the present bail application.

7. Moreover, the petitioners were arrested in this case on 02.04.2026, and since then, they have been under judicial custody. The investigation appears to have sub