Kerala High Court

Subhash vs State Of Kerala on 15 October, 2025

Author: K. Babu

Bench: K. Babu

                                                               2025:KER:76637



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
    WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 23RD ASWINA, 1947
                      BAIL APPL. NO. 12281 OF 2025
     CRIME NO.691/2025 OF Murikkassery Police Station, Idukki
        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.09.2025 IN CRMC NO.573 OF
2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, THODUPUZHA

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

    1        SUBHASH
             AGED 48 YEARS, PARAKKAL HOUSE, MUTTAM P.O.,
             THODUPUZHATALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685587

    2        JAIMOL
             AGED 44 YEARS, W/O SUBASH, PARAKKAL HOUSE, MUTTAM P.O.,
             THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685587

    3        SHAILAJA
             AGED 52 YEARS, W/O DR. REGHU, DHARMALAYATHIL HOUSE,
             VELLAYAMKUDY KARA, KATTAPANA VILLAGE,
             IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685515

            BY ADVS.
            SHRI.PRAVEEN S.
            SMT.AJISHA M.S.


RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

             STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSEUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ,
             ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031

             SRI.M.C.ASHI.SR.P.P


     THIS    BAIL   APPLICATION    HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
15.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 12281 OF 2025
                                 2

                                                   2025:KER:76637




                              ORDER

This is an application filed under Section 482 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short

'BNSS').

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in

Crime No.691 of 2025 of Murikkassery Police Station, Idukki

District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are

punishable under Sections 333, 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 76

and 3(5) of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The petitioners seek anticipatory bail

contending that they are innocent of the allegations and

they have been falsely implicated in the crime. The

petitioners filed Crl.M.C.No.573/2025 before the Sessions

Court, Thodupuzha. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed

the application.

4. The prosecution case as discernible from the BAIL APPL. NO. 12281 OF 2025

2025:KER:76637

order of the learned Sessions Judge (Annexure - 6), reads

thus:

"On 20.08.2025 at about 6:30 p.m., in violation of an Order issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Idukki, petitioner Nos.1 to 3, in furtherance of their common intention, criminally trespassed into the residential building of the defacto complainant situated at Kumaranpadi area, Padamukham Kara, Vathikudy Village, where she resides along with her children. When the defacto complainant questioned their unlawful entry, the 1st petitioner/1st ccused verbally abused her, caught hold of her left elbow, twisted it causing pain, pushed her down, and tore her churidar. At that time, the son of the defacto complainant came forward to intervene, the 1"

petitioner/ 1st accused took a knife which he was carrying and stabbed him on his left thigh, causing injury. Thereafter, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners / 2 nd and 3rd accused assaulted the son of the defacto complainant on his shoulder and neck with their footwear, and the 1 st petitioner/ 1st accused further pulled him by his leg and

threw him down on the floor [sic]."

5. Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners BAIL APPL. NO. 12281 OF 2025

2025:KER:76637

submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated

as a counterblast to Crime No.688 of 2025 of Murikkassery

Police Station, Idukki District.

7. The case of the petitioners as pleaded in

this Bail Application is as follows:-

"On the previous day at about 06:30 p.m., the petitioners entered into the courtyard of the building where the defacto complainant and their children were residing and tried to eject them out by using criminal force and also hurling abuses . It is further alleged that she is the former wife of the brother of the petitioners 2 and 3 and that there were civil litigations between the petitioners and the defacto complainant touching the possession of the property and the residential building thereon. That there was an order restraining her forcible eviction from the building which admittedly is owned by the 3 rd petitioner. The incident occurred when the defacto complainant cut and attempted to remove standing timber in the said property for agriculture purposes, which was questioned and objected by the petitioners (sic)."

8. The learned Public Prosecutor, objected the

bail plea of the petitioners, contending that the offences

alleged are serious in nature.

BAIL APPL. NO. 12281 OF 2025

2025:KER:76637

9. The incident occurred at 08.47 p.m at the

residence where the de-facto complainant is staying. The

de-facto complainant is staying there after obtaining a

protection order from the Magistrate's Court. The accident

facto complainant sustained an incised wound on the lateral

aspect of left mid thigh.

10. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted

that the weapon used by petitioner No.1 is to be recovered.

11. I have gone through the Case Diary. On a

perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that there are no

specific overt acts against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The

offences alleged against petitioner No.1 is grave. Petitioner

No.1 failed to establish that the accusations have been made

against him as a counterblast to Crime No.688 of 2025 of

Murikkassery Police Station. Petitioner No.1 failed to

establish a prima facie case for getting the benefits BAIL APPL. NO. 12281 OF 2025

2025:KER:76637

contained in Section 482 of the BNSS. Therefore, I hold that

petitioner No.1 is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

12. However, this Court is of the view that

petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to anticipatory bail.

13. It is legally permissible for this Court to

direct the accused to surrender before the Jurisdictional

Court while rejecting a prayer for anticipatory bail [See:

Nathu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0360/2021 :

(2021 (3) KLT Online 1113 (SC) and Rahul v. State of Kerala

(ILR 2021 (4) Kerala 64)].

14. Resultantly, the bail application as against

petitioner No.1 is dismissed. Petitioner No.1 is directed to

surrender before the Jurisdictional Court within a period of

one week from this date. On surrender before the

Jurisdictional Court, if petitioner No.1 prefers an application

seeking regular bail, the court shall dispose of the

application preferably on the same day itself untrammelled

by any of the observations made in this order. BAIL APPL. NO. 12281 OF 2025

2025:KER:76637

Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 shall appear before the

Investigating Officer on 23.10.2025 for interrogation. In the

event of their arrest, they shall be released on bail on their

executing bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent

sureties each for the like sum.

Sd/-

K. BABU JUDGE nak BAIL APPL. NO. 12281 OF 2025

2025:KER:76637

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 12281/2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, IDUKKI DATED 25.02.2019

Annexure A2 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA 4/2019 DATED 08.01.2021 OF SUB COURT, KATTAPPANA Annexure A3 THE COPY OF THE DIVORCE ORDER DATED 22.07.2024 OF FAMILY COURT, KATTAPPANA Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF THE 1ST PETITIONER Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF THE 2ND PETITIONER Annexure A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/09/2025 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE, THODUPUZHA IN CRL. M.C. NO. 573/2025 IN CRIME NO. 691/2025 OF MURICKASSERY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT