Kerala High Court
Sumesh. J vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2025
Author: K. Babu
Bench: K. Babu
B.A.No.12618 of 2025
1
2025:KER:79567
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 12618 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1367/2025 OF Nemom Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2025 IN CRMC NO.2810 OF
2025 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
SUMESH. J
AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O. JUSTUS, SUMESH BHAVAN,
KANJIRAMTHOTTAM, KATTACHALKUZHI.P.O.
NOW RESIDING AT KRISHNATHEERTHAM, MALAVILA,
KANIKKAKUTTI, PERINGAMLA, KALLIYOOR.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695501
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SMT.N.P.ASHA
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY
PIN - 682031
*2 BINOSH T. S
AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O R THILAKAN,
RESIDING AT SREETHILAK,
PERINGAMMALA, KALLIYOOR P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -PIN -695042
*(ADDITIONAL R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ODER DATED
B.A.No.12618 of 2025
2
2025:KER:79567
24/10/2025 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2025)
BY ADVS.
SHRI.HASHMI V.Z.
SMT.TINCY MARIA SCARIA
SHRI.GOUTHAM V.Z.
SHRI.ABHILASH N.
SHRI.JITHIN S.
SHRI.SREEROOP GOVIND
SHRI.ROLDEX R.
SHRI.GOKUL P.RAJ
SHRI.DEEPAK G.B.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.12618 of 2025
3
2025:KER:79567
K. BABU, J.
----------------------------------------------------
B.A.No.12618 of 2025
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of October 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.1367/2025 of Nemom Police Station. He is alleged to have
committed the offences punishable under Sections 110, 118(1),
351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
3. The prosecution case as narrated in the order
dated 03/10/2025 in Crl.M.C.No.2810/2025 reads thus-
" The informant is a Special Village Officer attached
to Revenue Department. He is residing at Kalliyoor
Village, Ward No.14. The informant has another
agricultural property situated about 150 meters away
from his residential property. The petitioner is the
neighbour of the informant. Petitioner often
unauthorizedly parked his vehicle and consumed
liquor at the aforesaid agricultural property of the
2025:KER:79567
informant. The said act of the petitioner was
questioned by the informant. It infuriated the
petitioner. On 18.09.2025 while the informant was at
his agricultural property, the petitioner passed through
the road near to his property in a scooter. A cycle was
placed by the side of the road and it was loaded with
firewood. The petitioner during his journey kicked the
cycle out of his anger The said incident was happened
at 4.10 p.m. Later the petitioner came to the property
of informant and he was holding a hammer and
chopper. He attacked the informant both with the
hammer and the chopper. He hacked the informant
with that chopper aiming at his head. But the
informant evaded and as a result of that one of the
blows fell on his nose and he sustained injury on his
nose. Had the informant not evaded the blow, he
would have sustained injury on his head and death
would have been caused." [sic]
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the victim/de-facto
complainant and the learned public prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are baseless.
2025:KER:79567
The learned counsel submitted that on perusal of the accident
register-cum-wound certificate and the treatment certificate, the
exaggerated version of the de-facto complainant is evident as
there are no corresponding injuries on the body of the petitioner.
The learned counsel further submitted that the de-facto
complainant trespassed upon his residence and voluntarily caused
hurt to his wife, for which she filed a complaint based on which
crime no. 1368/2025 of Nemom police station (Annexure-II) was
registered against the defacto complainant. The learned counsel
submitted that the genuineness of the allegations levelled is
doubtful.
6. The learned counsel for the de-facto
complainant submitted that the FIR registered based on the
complaint filed by the wife of the petitioner is an after thought
and the same has been registered as a counterblast to the incident,
in which he sustained injuries.
7. I have carefully gone through the case diary.
The injuries narrated in the accident register-cum-wound
certificate and the treatment certificate do not correspond to the
2025:KER:79567
injuries stated by the victim in the FIS. Based on Annexure -II
FIR, the petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in
this crime. The materials placed before this Court lead me to the
conclusion that there is doubt in the genuineness of the allegations
levelled against the petitioner.
8. 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,
2025:KER:79567
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."
9. 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
2025:KER:79567
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)
10. In Sushila Aggarwal (Supra), the Constitution
Bench 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.
11. 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:
(a) The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on 03.11.2025 between 10:00
AM and 11:00 AM for interrogation.
2025:KER:79567
(b) The Investigating Officer is directed to release
the petitioner on bail, in the event, he is
arrested, on his executing bond for Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum.
(c) The petitioner shall continue to appear before the
Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays
between 10 A.M. and 11 A.M for a period of three
months.
(d) The petitioner shall continue to report before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when
required.
(e) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses in
this case or tamper with the evidence.
(f) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the
investigation, including subjecting himself
to`deemed custody', as observed in Gurbaksh
Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2
SCC 565] and Sushila Aggarwal & Others v.
2025:KER:79567
State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. (AIR 2020 SC 831),
for the purpose of discovery or identification, if any.
Sd/-
K. BABU, JUDGE
Jms
2025:KER:79567
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 12618/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-I A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.1367/2025 OF NEMOM POLICE STATION
Annexure-II A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE NEMOM POLICE IN CRIME NO.1368/2025
OF NEMOM POLICE STATION
Annexure-III CERTIFIED FREE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL
MC NO. 2810/2025 DATED 3.10.2025 PASSED
BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure-IV A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.
1341/2018 PASSED BY JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE TEMPORARY COURT,
NEYYATTINKARA
