[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Reshma Joshi vs State Of Kerala on 2 February, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
B.A.No.14251/2025
1
2026:KER:8699
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 13TH MAGHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 14251 OF 2025
CRIME NO.291/2025 OF Town East Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2025 IN Bail Appl.
NO.5249 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:
RESHMA JOSHI, AGED 38 YEARS
W/O JOSHI, CHERUVTHOOR HOUSE, EMS
NAGAR,PEEDIKAPPARAMBU, KOZHUKKULLY P.O., THRISSUR,
PIN - 680751
BY ADVS. SMT.PAUL PAULSON T.
SHRI.ITTY PAULSON
SMT.SONA BENNY
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SRI.M.C ASHI, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.14251/2025
2
2026:KER:8699
ORDER
This is the second bail application filed under Section 482
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short,
BNSS), seeking pre-arrest bail.
2. The applicant is the accused No.4 in Crime
No.291/2025 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur District. The
offences alleged are punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the
IPC
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the
applicant had dishonestly and fraudulently obtained an amount of
₹42,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and his wife with a
false promise to provide 12.5% interest and to return the amount
on maturity of the deposit and thereafter failed to return the
amount or pay any interest and thereby cheated the defacto
complainant.
4. I have heard Sri. Paul Paulson T., the learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri. M.C. Ashi, the learned Senior
Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
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
2026:KER:8699
are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime;
hence, she is entitled to bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor
has pointed out that the applicant has not pleaded or established
any change in circumstances of the case since the dismissal of the
first bail application filed by her. The learned Senior Public
Prosecutor also submitted that, in the earlier proceedings, all the
points available to the applicant have been urged and negatived
by this court. In the absence of any change in fact situation or in
law after the dismissal of the first application, the second
application is not maintainable, submitted the learned Senior
Public Prosecutor.
6. The law regarding the grant of pre-arrest bail is
well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of
course. Grant of pre-arrest bail to some extent interferes in the
sphere of investigation of an offence, and hence, the court must
be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of
anticipatory bail. The extraordinary power of the High Court and
the Court of Session to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of
BNSS could be exercised with a significant amount of prudence,
care, and caution and only when a special case is made out, that
too, recording reasons thereof. While exercising powers under
Section 482 of BNSS, the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance
2026:KER:8699
between the individual's right to personal freedom and the
investigational right of the police.
7. The order granting or refusing to grant a pre-
arrest bail application is a final order, and the entertainment of a
second application essentially leads to a review of the earlier
order. However, a second or subsequent application for pre-arrest
bail is not completely barred. It cannot be entertained in routine
as well. An accused must establish the change in the
circumstances sufficient to persuade the court to invoke its
extraordinary jurisdiction to maintain the application for pre-arrest
bail for the second time. A material change in fact situation or law
is sine qua non for a second application for pre-arrest bail. The
three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav [(2005 (2) KLT SN 4 (C.No. 3)
SC =AIR 2005 SC 921] considered the legality and propriety of
successive bail applications. It was held in paragraph 20 thus:
"Even though there is room for filing a subsequent
bail application in cases where earlier applications
have been rejected, the same can be done if there is
a change in the fact situation or in law which requires
the earlier view being interfered with or where the
finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area
in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier,
can move a subsequent application."
2026:KER:8699
Following the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra), this Court, in Vineeth
v. State of Kerala (2015 (5) KHC 224), held that successive bail
applications without showing any change in the fact situation or
circumstance requiring the invocation of the extraordinary
jurisdiction of the High Court or the Court of Session under S.438
of Cr.P.C. can only be regarded as an abuse of the process of the
court. The Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Sudip Sen v.
State of W.B. (2010 Cri. L.J. 4628), after reiterating the principle
that there is no general bar or impediment in moving a second
application for pre-arrest bail, held that a person will be entitled to
move the High Court or the Court of Session for the second time
only on the ground of substantial change in the facts and
circumstances of the case due to subsequent events. It was
clarified that the accused would not be entitled to move the
second application on the ground that the Court, on earlier
occasion, failed to consider any particular aspect or material on
record or that any point then available to him was not agitated
before the Court. A Single Bench of this Court in Muhammed
Ziyad v. State of Kerala & Another (2015 (4) KLJ 22)
deprecated filing successive bail applications without legal
justification. Another Single Bench of this Court in Pandi v. State
2026:KER:8699
of Kerala (2018 (4) KLT 249) held that subsequent application for
pre-arrest bail on the same grounds without any change in
circumstances is liable to be rejected even summarily.
8. Thus, even though there is no absolute embargo
in filing the subsequent application for pre-arrest bail, it can be
entertained only if there is a substantial change in the facts and
circumstances of the case, which requires the earlier view be
interfered with or where, the earlier finding has become obsolete.
Ordinarily, the grounds canvassed in the earlier application cannot
be permitted to be reurged in the subsequent application. Nor
could the accused in the subsequent application contend that the
Court, while considering the earlier bail application, failed to
advert to any fact or material on record. A fact which was not in
existence at the time of considering the earlier bail application but
came into existence subsequently alone could be considered a
change in facts and circumstances [See Suresh v. State of
Kerala (2023 (4) KLT 696)].
Coming to the facts of the case, the first bail application
was rejected by this Court taking into account the gravity of the
offence, the complicity of the applicant in the crime, the stage of
investigation and the requirement of the applicant for custodial
interrogation. This Court on perusal of the entire case diary and
2026:KER:8699
after hearing the submission of both sides, found that the
accusation made against the applicant is very serious in nature
and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on her part.
There is no change in any of these circumstances. As rightly
argued by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, the possibility of
the applicant influencing the witnesses and interfering with the
investigation cannot be ruled out if she is released on bail.
Considering the gravity of the offence and stage of the
investigation, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the
extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482
of BNSS could be invoked. The bail application is, accordingly,
dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp
2026:KER:8699
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14251 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 5 ORDER DATED 29-09-2025 IN BAIL
APPL.5249/2025 ON HIGH COURT
Annexure 1 THE FIR DATED 10/02/2025 IN CRIME NO.291
OF 2025 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR
Annexure 2 COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF THE WHATSAPP
MESSAGE
Annexure 3 SCREENSHOT OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT DATED
09-10-2021, RS 10,000/- AND FINAL
SETTLEMENT AFTER RESIGNATION DATED 08-02-
2022, RS 31,500/- WITH ACCOUNT NUMBER
128205930563 OF ICICI BANK
Annexure 4 THE ORDER IN CRL. M.C. NO. 424/2025 DATED
4TH APRIL 2025
