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) 29321

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
VENKATESH N – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 2067 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR
For the Respondents: SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP

Pre-arrest bail may be granted when custodial interrogation is unnecessary and applicant has no criminal antecedents.

Headnote:First Paragraph: The applicant is charged under Sections 336(2), 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for producing a forged Pre-Degree certificate before the University of Calicut. The Court finds no necessity for custodial interrogation. Second Paragraph: The main issue is whether the applicant should be granted pre-arrest bail considering the nature of allegations and his cooperation.

Ratio Decidendi: Absence of criminal antecedents and lack of necessity for custodial interrogation justify bail. Last Paragraph: The bail application is allowed subject to conditions.

Table of Content
1. facts, allegations and statutory basis for bail. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments of parties regarding bail grant. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's reasoning and final bail order. (Para 6)

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS), seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.261/2025 of Tenhipalam Police Station, Malappuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 336(2), 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant, with the intention to deceive and to gain unlawful benefit, produced a forged Pre-Degree certificate as if it were genuine before the University of Calicut for verification, which upon scrutiny at the Pareeksha Bhavan of Calicut University was found to be forged and fabricated and thereby committed the aforementioned offences.

4. I have heard Sri. Nirmal V Nair, 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 above crime. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the applicant's intentional criminal acts, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

6. The applicant is aged 56 years. According to him, he has not submitted any certificate before the de facto complainant for verification. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Senior Public Prosecutor that the applicant appeared before the Investigating Officer and he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer. The custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary from the facts and circumstances of the case. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:-

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