Moses vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 2751 Ker

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2751 Ker
Judgement Date : 10 April, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Moses vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

B.A.No. 2026 of 2026

                               ..1..

                                                    2026:KER:32143


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

   FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1948

                   BAIL APPL. NO. 2026 OF 2026

  CRIME NO.182/2026 OF VANDIPERIYAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2026 IN CRL.MP NO.1011 OF 2026
    OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, PEERUMEDU
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

           MOSES
           AGED 42 YEARS, S/O JOHNSON,
           MANJUMALA ESTATE LAYAM,
           VANDIPERIYAR KARA,
           MANJUMALA VILLAGE IDUKKI, PIN - 685533

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
           SHRI.ROHITH R.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

           STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
           ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

           SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No. 2026 of 2026

                                  ..2..

                                                       2026:KER:32143



                             ORDER

This application is filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS),

seeking regular bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime

No.182/2026 of Vandiperiyar Police Station, Idukki District.

The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296(b),

115(2), 118(2) and 110 read with Section 3(5) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the defacto

complainant was owed wages and the applicant underpaid

him. The defacto complainant requested for the remaining

amount and out of resentment and with the premeditated

intention to cause physical harm, the applicant uttered

obscene words against him and initiated an attack on March

13, 2026. In the course of directing the defacto complainant

to work that day, the defacto complainant departed his

residence and arrived at Swamidas' tea shop located in

..3..

2026:KER:32143

Manjumala Village. At approximately 7:10 hours in the

morning, as the defacto complainant was exiting the shop

with his back turned towards the applicant, the latter

suddenly attacked him, thrusting a crowbar (which was

present inside the shop) into the upper part of the defacto

complainant's forehead. The injury inflicted was grievous,

conducted in the heat of the altercation over unpaid wages;

had the defacto complainant not instinctively moved away at

the precise moment of impact, the blow would likely have

proven fatal, resulting in loss of life. Subsequently, the

accused No.2, who was present outside the shop, rushed

towards the defacto complainant, striked him on the chest

with both hands. This assault caused severe pain and forced

the defacto complainant to fall to the ground and thereby

committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.T.A.Unnikrishnan, the learned

counsel for the applicant and Sri.K.A.Noushad, the learned

Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

..4..

2026:KER:32143

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted

that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated

in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no

materials are on record to connect the applicant with the

alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. On the other

hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the

alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal

acts of the applicant, and he is not entitled to bail at this

stage.

6. The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on

14.03.2026. The investigation is almost over and the

recovery has been effected. The applicant has no criminal

antecedents. For these reasons, I do not find any reason to

hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required

for any purpose. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be

released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following

conditions: -

..5..

2026:KER:32143

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail on executing

a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two

solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of

the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

(ii) The applicant shall fully co-operate with the

investigation.

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the investigating

officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday

until further orders. He shall also appear before the

investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like

nature while on bail.

(v) The applicant shall not attempt to contact any of

the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other

person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence

or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the

investigation.