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) 32202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
Subeesh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 1948 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Azad Sunil
For the Respondents: Sreeja V.

Pre-arrest bail may be granted when custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary, particularly in cases where the applicant was not named in the original complaint and has no criminal antecedents.

Headnote:The applicant sought pre-arrest bail in relation to allegations under S.406, 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, and 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, involving an alleged loan fraud of Rs.65,00,000/-. The applicant argued innocence and lack of involvement based on judicial records, while the prosecution contended that bail would impede the investigation. The court evaluated the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents and noted that the original private complaint did not implicate the applicant. The key issue was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail under S.482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court reasoned that since the applicant was not named in the initial complaint and the incident occurred nine years prior, custodial interrogation was unnecessary, forming the ratio for granting relief. The application is allowed subject to conditions including executing a bond, appearing for investigation, and adhering to restrictions on influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence.

Table of Content
1. nature of the application and alleged criminal activities. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. submission of arguments by the parties. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court justification for granting bail and final order. (Para 6)

ORDER

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.401/2024 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 406, 420, 464, 465, 467, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant along with 4 other accused in furtherance of their common intention to cheat the de facto complainant and to cause unlawful gain, mortgaged the property of the de facto complainant to the accused No.5 Institution by forging documents and availed loan of Rs.65,00,000/- and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Azad Sunil, 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. The crime was registered pursuant to a private complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam. In the private complaint, the applicant has not been made a party. There is no allegation against him. The main allegation was against the wife of the de facto complainant and also against the bank officials. The alleged incident took place nine years back. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Considering the allegations made against the applicant, his custodial interrogation seems unnecessary. 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.

(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.

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