[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Limna Linson vs State Of Kerala on 4 December, 2025
Author: K.Babu
Bench: K. Babu
2025:KER:93985
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 13485 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1042/2025 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN CRMC NO.2945 OF 2025 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VII/RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM / III ADDITIONAL MACT,
ERNAKULAM.
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
LIMNA LINSON
AGED 40 YEARS
RESIDIDNG AT KANNACHERY HOUSE JUBILY ROAD
ALUVA,ALUVA WEST VILLAGE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT KERALA,
PIN - 683101.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.K.PREM RAJ
SHRI.PRASANTH V.C.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF
KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
SRI. G. SUDHEER,PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A No. 13485 of 2025 2
2025:KER:93985
K.BABU, J.
--------------------------------------
B.A No. 13485 of 2025
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 04th day of December, 2025
ORDER
This is an application filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime
No.1042/2025 of Aluva Police Station, Ernakulam Rural District.
The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under
Sections 318 and 316(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, as narrated in Annexure A2
order reads thus:
"The accused had been working as the Manager of Indel
Money at Aluva Bank Junction. During the said period, the
accused received 47.27 grams of gold chain belonging to
the defacto complainant stating that it is for the purpose
of the business of Indel Money and she will be paid profits
and took the gold ornaments from her house on
04.02.2024. The accused has neither returned the gold
ornaments nor repaid the amount." [Sic.]
4. The case of the petitioner is that the defacto
complainant voluntarily entrusted her gold ornaments to Indel
Money, where the petitioner was working as the Manager, based
2025:KER:93985
on a mutual understanding regarding profit sharing of the firm. It
is submitted that the petitioner had no dishonest or fraudulent
intention to cheat the defacto complainant.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against her.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of
the petitioner.
8. I have gone through the Case Diary. The transaction
appears to be of a civil nature.
9. Upon consideration of the circumstances brought on
record, I am of the view that the petitioner has established a
prima facie case for obtaining the benefit of Section 482 of the
BNSS.
10. While considering the scope of jurisdiction under
Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2
SCC 565] held thus:
"31. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed
accusation appears to stem not from motives of
2025:KER:93985
furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior
motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the
applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the
release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest
would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears
likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that
taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will
flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But
the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true.
That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule
that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the
proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala
fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted
if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There
are several other considerations, too numerous to
enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with
the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The
nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the
context of the events likely to lead to the making of the
charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's
presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable
apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and
"the larger interests of the public or the State" are some
of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind
while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The
relevance of these considerations was pointed out in
State v. Captain Jagjit Singh [AIR 1962 SC 253 : (1962) 3
SCR 622 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 216] , which, though, was a case
under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the
present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount
consideration to remember that the freedom of the
individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as
it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person
seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the
presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to
restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions
which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration
of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on
bail."
11. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] the Apex Court held thus:-
2025:KER:93985
"113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be
restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the
B.A.Nos.5010 of 2021 & Connected cases 40 accused is
imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case.
The court must carefully examine the entire available
record and particularly the allegations which have been
directly attributed to the accused and these allegations
are corroborated by other material and circumstances on
record."
(In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 1]) the
declaration of law in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre that no
condition can be imposed while granting order of anticipatory bail
alone was overruled).
12. In Sushila Aggarwal, the Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court, following the decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia,
held that while considering an application (for grant of
anticipatory bail) the Court has to consider the nature of the
offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the
course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including
intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as
leaving the country), etc.
13. Having considered the entire circumstances on the
touchstone of the principles discussed above, I am of the view
that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.
In the result, the Bail Application is allowed as follows:
2025:KER:93985
(a) The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on 19.12.2025 between
10:00 A.M. and 11.00 A.M. for interrogation. In
the event of her arrest, she shall be released on
bail on her executing bond for Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum
(b) The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays
in between 10:00 A.M. and 11.00 A.M for a
period of three months or till the final report is
filed, whichever is earlier.
(c) The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when required.
(d) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses
or tamper with the evidence.
(e) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the
investigation, including subjecting herself to
'deemed custody' as observed in Gurbaksh
Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2
SCC 565] and Sushila Aggarwal v. State
(NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 1].
(f) The petitioner shall surrender her passport
before the jurisdictional court. If she does not
possess passport, the petitioner shall file an
affidavit to that effect.
Sd/-
K.BABU, JUDGE
mea
2025:KER:93985
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 13485 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR
Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
30.10.2025
