Kerala High Court
Nabeel V vs State Of Kerala on 23 October, 2025
Author: K.Babu
Bench: K. Babu
2025:KER:78912
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 9830 OF 2025
CRIME NO.720/2025 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.07.2025 IN
CRMC NO.642 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT/RENT
CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MANJERI.
PETITIONER:
NABEEL V.,
AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O. ALAVI VATTOLI, VATTOLI HOUSE,
PULIKKAL POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 673 637.
BY ADV SHRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA.,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKAULAM,
PIN - 682 031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KONDOTTY
KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, KODOTTY POST,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 638.
3 MUJEEB RAHMAN.,
AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O ABDUL ALI , NARIKKUTH HOUSE, PALLIKAL P.O ,
KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN -673 634 IS
IMPLEADED AS THE ADDITIONAL THIRD RESPONDENT
Bail Appl. No.9830 of 2025
2025:KER:78912
-2-
AS PER ORDER DATED 17.09.2025 IN CRL MA 1/2025 IN
BA 9830/2025.
BY ADV SRI.V.HARIKRISHNAN
BY M.C.ASHI (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. No.9830 of 2025
2025:KER:78912
-3-
K.BABU, J.
------------------------------------
Bail Appl. No.9830 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2025
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.720
of 2025 of Kondotty Police Station. The offences alleged are
punishable under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case, as narrated in Annexure-
A8 order reads as follows:-
"On 23.03.2025, the first accused who was a
friend of the defacto complainant deceitfully persuaded the
defacto complainant to entrust his Range Rover Car bearing
registration No.KL 07-CM-7948 along with its original
documents, promising him that it would be sold at a better
price, than available and in connivance with A2 and A3,
pledged the vehicle and the accused failed to return the
amount as promised, and thereby cheated the defacto
complainant, causing him a loss of Rs.4.50,000/-.(Sic)"
4. The case of the petitioner is that the car
involved was purchased by the de facto complainant after availing
a loan from Yes Bank from the original owner in the year 2020. In
2025:KER:78912
the same year, the de facto complainant sold the vehicle to
accused No.1 on condition that he would pay the balance loan
amount to the Yes Bank. Accused No.1 paid the balance
installments to the Bank. The vehicle remained in the lawful
possession of accused No.1. The de facto complainant failed to
take steps to transfer the registration in respect of the vehicle in
favour of accused No.1. The petitioner never obtained any
possession and he has no involvement in the incident. He is a
friend of accused No.1. He has not committed any offences as
alleged.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No.3
submitted that the de facto complainant is the owner of the
vehicle, and he never parted with the vehicle to anybody, and it
was he who closed the loan. It is further submitted with the
malafide intention the vehicle was pledged to a person named
Thapsi Attassery, who disfigured the vehicle.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail
application and contended that the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is required.
7. I have gone through the Case Diary. The
petitioner has establisehd a prima facie case for getting the
benefits under Section 482 of the BNSS.
8. While considering the scope of jurisdiction
2025:KER:78912
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 Jagjit
Singh [AIR 1962 SC 253 : (1962) 3 SCR 622 : (1962) 1 Cri
2025:KER:78912
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
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).
10. 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
2025:KER:78912
intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as
leaving the country), etc.
11. Having regard to the entire circumstances and
the precedents mentioned above, I am of the view that the
petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.
In the result, this bail application is allowed on the
following conditions:
(1) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on 13.11.2025 between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. for
interrogation. In the event of his arrest, he shall be released on
bail on his executing bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.
(2) He shall continue to appear before the Investigating
Officer for interrogation on Mondays and Fridays for a period of
two weeks.
(3) The petitioner shall not leave India without the
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
(4) The petitioner shall continue to report before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required.
(5) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence.
(6) He shall fully co-operate with the investigation,
including subjecting hmself to `deemed custody', as observed in
2025:KER:78912
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Others. v. State of Punjab and
Sushila Aggarwal & Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.
(AIR 2020 SC 831), for the purpose of discovery or identification, if
any.
Sd/-
K.BABU,
JUDGE
ADS
2025:KER:78912
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9830/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY
DE FACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM.
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 720 OF 2025 OF KONDOTTY POLICE
STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
OF CAR BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL-07-CM-
7948.
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE AVAILABLE RECEIPTS
(ISSUED FROM CHERUKAVU PANCHAYATH SERVICE
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.) OF PAYMENT TO THE
LOAN ACCOUNT OF DE FACTO COMPLAINANT
DURING DIFFERENT INTERVALS.
Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE PARKING TICKET DATED
26.10.2021 ISSUED TO FIRST ACCUSED.
Annexure 6 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE ISSUED FROM
PREMIUM CLASSIC CAR CARES, KONDOTTY
DURING VARIOUS INTERVALS.
Annexure 7 TRUE COPY OF THE CLOSURE LETTER DATED
01.06.2025 ISSUED BY YES BANK LTD.
Annexure 8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.07.2025 IN
CRL.M.C NO. 642 OF 2025 PASSED BY
SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI.
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R3(a) TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME:447/2025 IN
KONDOTTY POLICE STATION.
Annexure R3(b) THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF VEHICLE WAS USED
IN THE MARRIAGE FUNCTIONS OF 3RD
RESPONDENT RELATIVE ON 05/01/2025.
2025:KER:78912
Annexure R3(c) THE SCREENSHOT OF LIBRARY OF THE 3 RD
RESPONDENTS PHONE FROM JANUARY 6 AND 7 ,
2025 SHOWS THE IMAGES OF MY FAMILY WITH
THE VEHICLE.
Annexure R3(d) THE TRUE SCREENSHOT OF PETITIONERS
DAUGHTER IN THE VEHICLE TAKEN ON
27/02/2024.
Annexure R3(e) THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DISFIGURED
VEHICLE WITH NUMBER PLATE REMOVED.
Annexure R3(f) THE TRUE COPY OF INSURANCE OBTAINED BY
FRAUD.
