Kerala High Court
Sree Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 9 October, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
BAIL APPL. NO. 11390 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:74891
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 17TH ASWINA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 11390 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1337/2025 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 01.09.2025 IN CRMC NO.2181
OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT / RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOLLAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED (A3 & A4):
1 SREE KUMAR
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. RAMESHAN, SMC NO.102, PUNUKKANNOOR, PERUMBUZHA
P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691504.
2 MANOJ KUMAR
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. PURUSHAN R, MUNDAKKAL JAYANTHI COLONY,
PUNUKKANNOOR, PERUMBUZHA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691504.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.RADHIKA S.ANIL
SHRI.NIJAZ JALEEL
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
BY SMT. SREEJA V, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.10.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 11390 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:74891
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A. No.11390 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.3 & 4 in Crime No.1337/2025 of Kundara
Police Station, Kollam, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 115(2), 118(2) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
3. The prosecution case is that, due to a prior enmity, the accused had on
22.06.2025 threatened him and manhandled him with an interlock brick
causing grievous injuries, and thereby the accused committed the
offences alleged.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners
have been wrongly implicated as accused and that they have no
involvement in the alleged crime.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted
BAIL APPL. NO. 11390 OF 2025
2025:KER:74891
that allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature.
7. Petitioners are alleged to have, along with accused Nos.1 and 2,
assaulted the defacto complainant, resulting in grievous injuries. A
reading of the FIR reveals that the main allegations were only against
accused Nos.1 and 2, who are alleged to have assaulted the defacto
complainant with dangerous weapons in the form of an interlock brick.
The specific overt act that caused the grievous injury is attributed to the
first accused, while petitioners are alleged to have assaulted the defacto
complainant with their hands and legs. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were
arrested and they have already been released on bail.
8. In Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
Another [(2020) 5 SCC 1], it was held that while considering whether to
grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by
considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role
attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of
anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be
imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case,
and subject to the discretion of the court.
9. Considering the nature of overt act alleged against the petitioners and
also taking into account that accused Nos.1 and 2 have already been
arrested and released on bail, I am of the view that petitioners can be
protected with an order of pre-arrest bail, subject to conditions.
10. In the result, this application is allowed on the following
BAIL APPL. NO. 11390 OF 2025
2025:KER:74891
conditions:
(a) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on
17.10.2025 and shall subject themselves to interrogation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to
arrest the petitioners, then, they shall be released on bail on
them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand
only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before
the Investigating Officer.
(c) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as
and when required and shall also co-operate with the
investigation.
(d) Petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the
witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence.
(e) Petitioners shall not commit any similar offences while they
are on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, or if any modification
or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall
be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been
granted by this Court.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AMV/09/10/2025
BAIL APPL. NO. 11390 OF 2025
2025:KER:74891
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 11390/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-A A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1337 /
2025 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE-B A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2025 IN
CRL.MC NO. 2181/ 2025 OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS
COURT; KOLLAM.
