[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Muhammed Shahal vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2025
Author: K. Babu
Bench: K. Babu
B.A.Nos.14265 and 14331 of 2025
1
2025:KER:95622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 14265 OF 2025
CRIME NO.769/2025 OF KOZHIKODE TOWN POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.11.2025 IN CRMC
NO.1766 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II,
KOZHIKODE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 MUHAMMED SHEHIN
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O MUSTHAFA, AGED 20 YEARS AND RESIDING AT
CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, UNNIKULAM , QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673306
2 RIZEN MAIZ
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O IBIN ADAM, AGED 20 YEARS, S A S, WEST
KALLAYI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673003
BY ADV SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
*2 SHANAS.K.K
S/O.ABDUL LATHEEF, RESIDING AT ERANJOTH HOUSE,
PULLALOOR, PARANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
( ADDITONAL R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
B.A.Nos.14265 and 14331 of 2025
2
2025:KER:95622
11.12.2025 IN CRL.M.A No.1/25)
BY ADV SHRI.PRANAV
ADV PRANAV FOR ADDL RESPONDENT..ADV T VNEEMA SR
PP..ADV MK PUSHPALATHA SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.12.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..14331/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.14265 and 14331 of 2025
3
2025:KER:95622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 14331 OF 2025
CRIME NO.769/2025 OF KOZHIKODE TOWN POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2025 IN Bail
Appl. NO.14265 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED SHAHAL
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O. SALEEM, RESIDING AT PALORAMMAL,
PILASSERY, KUNNAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673571
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
SMT.K.BINCYMOL
SHRI.KURIAN GEORGE POOTHICOTE
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.12.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..14265/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.14265 and 14331 of 2025
4
2025:KER:95622
K. BABU, J.
---------------------------------------------------
B.A.Nos.14265 and 14331 of 2025
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of December 2025
ORDER
These applications are filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in
Crime No.769/2025 of Kozhikode Town Police Station. The offences
alleged against the petitioners and the other accused are punishable
under Sections 333, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) and 110 read with
Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
3. The prosecution case is as follows:-
On 31.10.2025, the petitioners along with accused
no.4, armed with deadly weapons, trespassed into Fine Dine
Restaurant at South Beach in Kozhikode, run by the informant and
attacked one of the staff members. On being questioned by the
informant, he was also brutally attacked by the accused persons with
an iron rod. He suffered grievous injuries in the incident.
4. The case of the petitioners as pleaded in the bail
B.A.Nos.14265 and 14331 of 2025
2025:KER:95622
application reads thus-
" 4.What transpired leading to the above incident is as
follows. The brother of the 3rd accused who is a student of the
Koduvally Government higher secondary School studying for
Plus one, was attacked and ragged by his seniors which caused
grievous injuries on his person. Regarding the above incident,
a complaint is made before the Police and the same is
registered as crime 924/2025 of the Koduvally Police in
Kozhikode district. The offences alleged against the accused
are under sections 189 (2), 191 (2), 126 (2), 115 (2), 118 (1),
324 (3) and Section 190 of the BNS 2023. True copy of the
first information report registered in respect of the above crime
is produced herewith and the same may be marked as
Annexure A1 .
5. In the said circumstances, the petitioners herein in
order to give him a moral support accompanied him to the
school premises. At that point of time , the de facto
complainant in this case and his men tried to attack the
petitioners herein and there was a scuffle between them in
which the 1st Petitioner herein also suffered injuries, as also the
complainant. True copy of the Wound Certificate showing
injuries caused to the 1't petitioner is produced herewith and
the same may be marked as Annexure A2.
6. From the hospital, the doctor who was attending on
the 1st Petitioner advised him to get himself admitted as an
inpatient and stay back. But the Petitioner got information that
the hench men of the complainant who attacked the Petitioner
herein was standing outside the hospital with the intention to
attack the Petitioner again. In the said circumstances the
Petitioner had no other alternative other than to escape from
B.A.Nos.14265 and 14331 of 2025
2025:KER:95622
the said premises. Hence the Petitioner got a discharge from
the hospital against the wishes of the doctor attending on him
and he had to leave the hospital. True copy of the observation
that the Petitioner had left the hospital without the permission
of the doctor, is produced herewith and the same may be
marked as Annexure A3." (sic)
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the learned counsel for the additional second respondent and the
learned Senior public prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the present crime has been registered as a counterblast to the
incident in which the first petitioner in B.A.No.14265/2025 sustained
injuries. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Annexure
A1-FIR, Annexures A2 and A3 OP cards in support of his contentions.
7. The learned counsel for the additional second
respondent, relying on Annexure R2 series OP cards and discharge
summary, submits that the defacto complainant sustained severe
injuries in the incident.
8. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the
bail application. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that
the police have not reported any criminal antecedents against the
petitioners.
B.A.Nos.14265 and 14331 of 2025
2025:KER:95622
9. 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
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
B.A.Nos.14265 and 14331 of 2025
2025:KER:95622
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."
10. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] the Apex Court held thus:-
"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 (Supra)
that no condition can be imposed while granting order of
anticipatory bail alone was overruled)
11. In Sushila Aggarwal (Supra), the Constitution Bench
B.A.Nos.14265 and 14331 of 2025
2025:KER:95622
of the Apex Court, following the decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia
(Supra), 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.
12. The petitioners are 20 year old students. They have
no criminal antecedents. Having regard to the entire circumstances
brought out, I feel that the petitioners have established a prima facie
case.
13. The learned counsel for the additional second
respondent submitted that the defacto complainant/additional second
respondent apprehends threat on the part of the petitioners.
14. Having considered the entire circumstances on the
touchstone of the principles discussed above, I am of the view that
the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail.
15. In the result, the Bail Applications are disposed of
with the following directions:
B.A.Nos.14265 and 14331 of 2025
2025:KER:95622
(a) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on 22.12.2025 between 2.00 P.M. and 3.00 P.M.
for interrogation. In the event of their arrest, they shall
be released on bail on their executing bond for
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum.
(b) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating
Officer as and when required.
(c) The petitioners shall not influence the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence.
(d) The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence
while on bail.
(e) The Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode, is directed
to see that the person and property of the additional
respondent are protected form any threat on the part of
the petitioners.
(f) The petitioners shall fully co-operate with the
investigation, including subjecting himself to 'deemed
custody' as observed in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State
of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] and Sushila Aggarwal
B.A.Nos.14265 and 14331 of 2025
2025:KER:95622
v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 1].
(g) If any of the bail conditions are violated by the
petitioner, the jurisdictional court will be at liberty to
cancel the bail, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
K. BABU,
JUDGE
Jms
B.A.Nos.14265 and 14331 of 2025
2025:KER:95622
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14265 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT REGISTERED IN RESPECT OF THE
ABOVE CRIME DATED 4.11.2025
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE
SHOWING INJURIES CAUSED TO THE 1ST
PETITIONER
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBSERVATION THAT THE
PETITIONER HAD LEFT THE HOSPITAL WITHOUT
THE PERMISSION OF THE DOCTOR
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE F I R REGISTERED
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS DATED 2.11.2025
Annexure A5 THE COPY OF THE ORDER DISMISSING THE
BAIL APPLICATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS IN
THE COURT OF SESSION KOZHIKODE DIVISION
DATED 24.11.2025
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE EMERGENCY OUT PATIENT
CARD ISSUED TO ME FROM THE GOVT. MEDICAL
COLLEGE KOZHIKODE DATED, 31-10-2025
Annexure R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE CT SCAN
OF MY LEG ISSUED FROM SANTHI HOSPITAL
DATED, 01-11-2025
Annexure R2(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY
ISSUED TO ME FROM GANGA HOSPITAL,
COIMBATORE DATED, 12-11-2025
B.A.Nos.14265 and 14331 of 2025
2025:KER:95622
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14331 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR OF THE CRIME NO.
924/2025 OF THE KODUVALLY POLICE STATION
IN KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, DATED 4/11/2025
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE
SHOWING INJURIES CAUSED TO THE 1 ST
ACCUSED
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBSERVATION THAT THE HE
HAD LEFT THE HOSPITAL WITHOUT THE
PERMISSION OF THE DOCTOR
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR OF THE CRIME NO
769/2025 OF THE KOZHIKODE TOWN POLICE
STATION IN KOZHIKODE, DATED 2/11/2025
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/11/2025
CRL.MC. 1838/2025 OF THE SESSINS COURT,
KOZHIKODE
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE WOULD CERTIFICATE,
DATED 31/10/2025
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT SUMMARY OF
THE SHANTHI HOSPITAL, DATED 8/11/2025
