Kerala High Court
Jishnu Reghu vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
BAIL APPL. NO. 9462 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:66868
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 18TH BHADRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 9462 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1016/2021 OF Pulikeezhu Police Station,
Pathanamthitta
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2024 IN Bail Appl. NO.7454
OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ 1ST ACCUSED :
JISHNU REGHU
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O REGHU, KAUSALYAIL HOUSE,
PERINGARA VILLAGE,
CHATHENKERY P.O.,
THIRUVALLA TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689112
BY ADVS.
SRI.BOBY THOMAS
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SHRI.G.MOTILAL
SRI.BINU BOSE
SHRI.PAUL T. SAMUEL
BAIL APPL. NO. 9462 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:66868
RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT :
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031
SRI. C.K.SURESH, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 9462 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:66868
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------
B.A.No.9462 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.1016 of 2021 of
Pulikeezhu Police Station, Pathanamthitta, which is now pending as SC
No. 157 of2022 before the Additional Sessions Judge-1 (Special Court),
Pathanamthitta. The offences alleged the petitioner are punishable under
Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 506(ii), 294(b) and 302 r/w 149 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. According to the prosecution, on 02.12.2021, the accused,
six in number formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and caused
the murder of Sri.Sandeep, who was a CPI(M) party activist and thereby
committed the offences alleged.
4. Petitioner was initially granted bail on 14.10.2024. However,
his bail was cancelled on 10.06.2025 and thereafter petitioner was
arrested on 03.07.2025. The subsequent two applications for grant of
BAIL APPL. NO. 9462 OF 2025
2025:KER:66868
bail were rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. It is in such
circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
6. When the matter came up for consideration, initially, this
Court called for a report from the Sessions Court as to the stage of trial.
By communication dated 14.08.2025, it is informed that all materials are
available for commencement of trial but the charges have to be framed.
It was further reported that accused 1 to 6 never appeared together to
frame charges despite specific instructions. The learned Judge has also
observed that there is a practice of the accused to protract the
proceedings. Again, this Court called for another report from the learned
Sessions Judge as to whether a trial has been scheduled or not, since
such information was not forthcoming from the earlier report. By
communication dated 29.08.2025, it has been informed that the charges
against all accused, except A2, has been framed on 23.08.2025 and for
framing the charge against A2, the case was posted to 03.09.2025. It
was also submitted that though the case is not scheduled for trial, it can
be scheduled on 03.09.2025 or immediately thereafter.
7. It is now informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner
BAIL APPL. NO. 9462 OF 2025
2025:KER:66868
as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that charges against all the
accused have now been framed.
8. Be that as it may, the question raised for consideration is
whether the accused whose bail was cancelled on 10.06.2025 should be
enlarged on bail. In this context, the observation of the learned Sessions
Judge regarding the reason for cancellation of the bail merits
reproduction.
"There are five accused in this case. The proceedings paper will
Show that many times this court has adjourned the case repeatedly for
the purpose of framing the charges. From 11.04.2025 onwards on
twelve consecutive occasions it was adjourned for the appearance of Al
to A5 together to frame the charges. However anyone of these accused
was absent on all these days and the court has only issued bailable
warrant under the feel that the accused might have missed the hearing
date. But it is seen that the accused against whom bailable warrant
was issued has duly appeared in the next hearing date and on
application of such accused the court has excused their non
appearance and recalled the bailable warrant. Since this attitude is
intolerable, the court has given warning to all the accused to appear on
10.06.2025 to frame charges. On that day A3 and A5 alone appeared.
The other accused with exception of the first accused have due
representation by the counsel. However the first accused was absent
and his absence was not condoned by the counsel. Constrained by the
scant respect for law by these accused, the bail granted to the first
accused was cancelled and bond was forfeited. The case thereafter was
adjourned to 03.07.2025. On that day the first accused appeared with
BAIL APPL. NO. 9462 OF 2025
2025:KER:66868
an excuse petition, trying to conceal the fact that he is not on bail.
Fortunately the court has perused in detail the order sheet dated
10.06.2025 and dismissed the excuse petition. The first accused has
remanded to judicial custody. This is the back ground".
9. A reading of the above observations of the learned Sessions
Judge indicate that the accused have been adopting a tactic of protracting
the proceedings under one pretext or the other. The reason for
cancellation of the bail being justified and legally tenable, I am of the
view that since the trial is about to be scheduled and having regard to
the gravity of the offences alleged and the conduct of the accused, he
cannot be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, it is
observed that the trial court shall take every endeavour to schedule the
trial at the earliest and dispose of the same without further delay.
The Registry shall communicate this decision to the learned
Sessions Judge.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE
RKM
BAIL APPL. NO. 9462 OF 2025
2025:KER:66868
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9462/2025
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT BY THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 14.10.2024 IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 7454/2024
Annexure A2 FAIR COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2025 BY
THE COURT OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE - 1(SPECIAL COURT),
PATHANAMTHITTA IN CRIMINAL M.P. NO.
