1. Application for regular bail in a case involving rioting and criminal offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74845
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
Ujil N – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 6822 OF 2026
Important Points
An accused is entitled to bail if no specific overt act is attributed to them, the investigation is nearly complete with recoveries effected, and co-accused with primary roles have already been granted bail.
Subject
Criminal - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Criminal Procedure - Regular Bail - Absence of specific overt act - Where the investigation is substantially complete, recoveries are effected, and no specific overt act is attributed to the accused, continued detention is not warranted, especially when a co-accused with a more primary role has already been granted bail. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the applicant, accused No. 6, is entitled to regular bail in the absence of a specific overt act attribution.
Issues: Whether the applicant, accused No. 6, is entitled to regular bail in the absence of a specific overt act attribution.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.K.Subhash, Jeni John
For the Respondents: Thomas Sabu Vadakekut
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.K.Subhash, Jeni John
For the Respondents: Thomas Sabu Vadakekut
Table of Contents
2. Applicant contends false implication and lack of evidence, while prosecution opposes bail citing the intentional nature of the criminal act. (Para 5 )
3. The court observed that no specific overt act was attributed to the applicant, the co-accused was already on bail, and the investigation had substantially progressed. (Para 6 )
4. Where the applicant has no specific overt act attributed to them and investigation is advanced, continued judicial detention is unnecessary, warranting the grant of bail. (Para 6 )
5. Application allowed; applicant granted regular bail subject to specified conditions including bond execution and cooperation with further investigation. (Para 6 )
6. What criteria should the court consider when deciding a bail application for an accused charged with rioting and attempted murder?
The court evaluates the presence of specific overt acts attributed to the applicant, the status of the investigation including evidence recovery, and whether judicial custody is still required, particularly considering if co-accused persons have been granted bail. (Para 6 )
This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail.
2. The applicant is the accused No.6 in Crime No.698/2026 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(1), 118(1) and 109(1) r/w 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 15.09.2026, at around 22.30 hours, at Chathurakkinar in Puthukai Village, the applicant along with other accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed rioting, armed with deadly weapons. The accused No.1 stabbed the defacto complainant with a knife on his abdomen and the accused Nos.2 and 3 beat him on his head with an iron rod, thereby attempting to murder him. Thus, the applicants committed the aforementioned offences.
4. I have heard Sri.P.K.Subhash, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.Thomas Sabu Vadakekut, the learned 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 present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage.
6. The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 09.10.2026. No specific overt act has been attributed to the applicant. The injury was inflicted by the accused No.1, who was already granted bail by this court. The investigation is almost over and the recovery has been effected. For these reasons, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required for any purpose. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions: -
(i) The applicant shall be released on bail 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 jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.
(ii) The applicant shall fully co-operate with the investigation.
(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 the bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.
