Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 31228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
Anosh K. R – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 2439 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Renjith B. Marar, Lakshmi N. Kaimal, P. Rajkumar, Keshavraj Nair, Biju Vigneswar, Arun Poomulli, Abhiram S., Gaadha Suresh, Akshay Shibu, Ananthapadmanabhan, Ashish Paul, Laxmisree Jayantha Kumar, Murali Krishna Prasad
For the Respondents: Sreeja V.
The court granted pre-arrest bail, determining that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, as the dispute over property ownership and leasing appeared to be of a civil nature, and the complainant had enjoyed peaceful possession of the premises for a significant duration.
Headnote:The petitioner filed an application under S. 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of cheating and fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the ownership of a rented property. The court analyzed the nature of the transaction and the duration of possession, noting that the complainant had occupied the premises for 11 months, casting doubt on the necessity of custodial interrogation despite the existence of similar complaints. The core issues framed were whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the criminal allegations and whether custodial interrogation was required for the investigation. The court reasoned that in view of the civil nature of the underlying dispute and the fact that the complainant had resided in the property for a significant duration, the requirements for custodial confinement were not met. The application is allowed with specific bail conditions, including a bond requirement, cooperation with investigation, and restrictions on witness tampering and travel.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. brief overview of the bail application and case facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding the grant of bail. (Para 4 , 5) |
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 accused in Crime No.108/2026 of Elamakkara Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant, with the intention to cheat the defacto complainant and make excessive profits for himself, defrauded him by misrepresenting that the house taken on rent is owned by him and fraudulently obtained Rs.15,00,000/- from the account of the defacto complainant’s wife and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
4. I have heard Sri.Renjith B.Marar, 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 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. It is not in dispute that the building in question belongs to one Mr.Vasudevan. According to the defacto complainant, the applicant suppressed the fact that the building belonged to the so- called Mr.Vasudevan and, styling himself as the owner of the building, leased it to him. However, the case of the applicant is that he took the building on lease from Mr.Vasudevan and he subleased it to the defacto complainant with his knowledge. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor invited my attention to three similar complaints preferred by others against the applicant. A reading of the FIS would show that the defacto complainant was occupying the building in question with effect from 10.05.2025 and he came to know the fact that the applicant was not the owner of the building only on 11.03.2026. Admittedly, the period of licence between the applicant and the defacto complainant was 11 months. The averments in the FIS would show that the defacto complainant has occupied the building for 11 months for which he paid a consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-. Thus, even though similar complaints have been lodged against the applicant, I am of the view that his custodial interrogation is not necessary. 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:-
(i) The applicant shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest 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 arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may be.
(ii) The applicant shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for discovery, if any, as and when demanded.
(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
