Kerala High Court
Justin vs State Of Kerala on 29 April, 2025
2025:KER:33342
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 9TH VAISAKHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 5365 OF 2025
CRIME NO.178/2025 OF Kumily Police Station, Idukki
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.140 OF
2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA
PETITIONER:
JUSTIN
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O SCARIA, PALATHARA HOUSE, VALARADI KARA,
PERIYAR VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI
DISTRICT, PIN - 685 509
BY ADV DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682 031
SR PP- VIPIN NARAYAN A
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. No.5365 of 2025
2025:KER:33342
-2-
ORDER
(Dated this the 29th day of April, 2025)
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
2. Petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime
No.178 of 2025 of Kumily Police Station. The above
case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence
punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(2) and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that, due to
previous animosity towards the de facto complainant, the
petitioner along with accused on 13.02.2025 at 07.:10
pm., at Kumily bus stand abused the de facto
complainant and the 1st accused hit him on his nose with
a stone which caused fracture to the bone and an
identifiable person beat on the right hand with iron stick
and other accused hit on the chest and back of the de
facto complainant. It is further alleged that the 1 st
accused has stolen the purse of the de facto complainant
containing Rs.12,000/- and thereby committed the
aforesaid offences.
2025:KER:33342
4. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel
further submitted that no materials are on record to
connect the petitioner with the alleged crime; hence he
is entitled to get bail. The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner further submitted that no specific overt act
was alleged against the petitioner and, even as per the
prosecution case, the injury was caused by the 1 st
accused. On the other hand, the learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred
as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the
petitioner, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage.
6. From the submission of both sides, it
appears that the investigation of the case is now in an
advanced stage. The prosecution records do not show
that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents. The
role attributed to the petitioner is relatively minor. At
present, there are no reasons to hold that the custodial
2025:KER:33342
interrogation of the petitioner is unavoidable for the
further progress of the investigation. The anxiety
expressed by the learned Public Prosecutor that the
accused would interfere with the process of investigation
if released on bail, can be addressed by imposing
suitable conditions. Having considered the nature of
allegations against the petitioner and the present stage
of the investigation, it is only just and proper to release
the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest.
7. In the result, the application is allowed
on the following conditions:
(i) In the event of arrest, the petitioner
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 investigating officer.
(ii) The petitioner shall fully cooperate with
the investigation.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the
investigation officer on every Sunday for one
month and then as and when a notice in writing
2025:KER:33342
is issued in this regard by the investigating
officer.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any
offence of a like nature while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall not interact with the
prosecution witnesses, directly or through any
other person, or in any other way influence any
witnesses or other persons related to the
investigation and he shall not tamper with the
evidence.
(vi) The petitioner shall not leave 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 ground of violating the
bail conditions can be entertained by the
jurisdictional court, if it is found necessary.
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
AKH
2025:KER:33342
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5365/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.
140/2025 OF SESSIONS JUDGE, THODUPUZHA
DATED 07.03.2025
