Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 31032
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
Sumi Rajesh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 2344 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aravind Ghosh
For the Respondents: R.K. Rakesh, M.C. Ashi
Pre-arrest bail may be granted even in serious allegations when the dispute is essentially civil in nature, there is a significant delay in filing the complaint, and custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary to the investigation process.
Headnote:The present matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail under S.482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The accusations involve various offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, following a private complaint alleging trespassing, physical assault, and theft of personal items amid a financial dispute. The court noted significant delays between the alleged incident date and the filing of the complaint, alongside a contemporaneous civil dispute regarding financial transactions. The core issue was whether custodial interrogation was necessary given the nature of the allegations and existing civil litigation between the parties. The court reasoned that since the parties were already involved in legal proceedings regarding the underlying financial dispute, custodial interrogation of the applicants was not required, relying on the facts that the applicants had initiated prior legal action before the Legal Services Authority. In the result, the application for pre-arrest bail was allowed subject to stringent conditions, including bond execution and cooperation with the police investigation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the accusations and criminal offence details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions of parties regarding bail eligibility. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court determination on custodial necessity and bail conditions. (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 applicants are the accused Nos.1 and
2 in Crime No.95/2026 of Mannancherry Police Station, Alappuzha District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 333, 296(b), 115(2), 126(2), 119(1), 351(2), 308(2), 309(4) and 324 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, the de facto complainant along with her husband is running a home stay at Mararikkulam at Alappuzha under the name and style KSHIKI and the accused No.1 was an employee in their home stay. While so, the husband of the de facto complainant borrowed an amount of Rs.2 lakhs from the accused No.1 but had not repaid the said amount in time. Due to the said animosity and to realise the said amount in any way, the accused persons trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant on 13.03.2025 at about 03.30 p.m. with the intent to extort the Maruti Baleno Car bearing Reg. No.32 R 2674 owned by the de facto complainant and enquired about the husband of the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant informed them that her husband is at the home stay. But the accused persons were not convinced by the said reply and demanded the borrowed amount of Rs.2 lakhs from the de facto complainant and illegally remained there, thereafter, the accused entered into the house of the de facto complainant and forcefully opened the almirah. When the de facto complainant obstructed them, the accused No.2 caught hold of her hair, pushed her down and then the accused Nos.3 and 4 kicked on various parts of her body. When she attempted to inform the police through mobile phone, the accused No.2 forcefully grabbed the mobile phone from her, thereafter the key of the car kept in the almirah was also taken into his custody. While so, the accused Nos.1 and 3 forcefully restrained the de facto complainant and the accused Nos.2 and 4 verbally abused her and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
4. I have heard Sri. Aravind Ghosh, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri. M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the above crime. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to get bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicants, and if they are released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.
6. The crime was registered pursuant to a private complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. The private complaint was filed on 29.01.2026. However, the incident took place on 13.03.2025. In the meanwhile, the applicant No.1 has preferred a complaint before the Legal Services Authority, Alappuzha against the de facto complainant and her husband stating that the de facto complainant owed a sum of Rs.3,24,000/- and agreed to return the same and as a security, the car in question was handed over. Considering the allegations made against the applicants, their custodial interrogation seems unnecessary. For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicants.
In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with
