Roby Thomas vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1513 Ker

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1513 Ker
Judgement Date : 12 February, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Roby Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

B.A.No. 12492 of 2025
                                 ..1..


                                                 2026:KER:12915


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

 THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 23RD MAGHA, 1947

                  BAIL APPL. NO. 12492 OF 2025

 CRIME NO.157/2024 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2025 IN CRL.MC NO.2528 OF 2025
         OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-VII, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

           ROBY THOMAS
           AGED 45 YEARS
           MANIYANKOTTU VEEDU,
           NEERIKKOD P.O, ALANGAD,
           ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683511

           BY ADVS.
           SHRI.V.A.HAKEEM
           SMT.HABNAM HAKEEM
           SHRI.RAHUL O.
           SMT.NIFITHA K.A.
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND ACCUSED:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
           ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
    2      STATION HOUSE OFFICER
           BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION,
           ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683502
           SRI.M.C.ASHI, SR.PP

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No. 12492 of 2025
                                     ..2..


                                                                 2026:KER:12915



                               ORDER

This application is 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.2 in Crime

No.157/2024 of Binanipuram Police Station, Ernakulam

District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections

406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

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

and accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4, in order to have wrongful gain

to them and cause wrongful loss to 17 persons, promised

them that accused No.1 has got license to recruit for

employment in Norway and received an amount of

Rs.76,11,500/- from 17 persons and out of the said amount,

she has transferred Rs.64,21,850/- to the account of

accused No.1 in Aluva Union Bank and balance is kept by the

applicant. The accused has neither provided visa nor returned

..3..

2026:KER:12915

the amount to these persons and thereby committed the

offences.

4. I have heard Sri.V.A.Hakeem, 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 above crime. The counsel further submitted that no

materials are on record to connect the applicant with the

alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. The learned Public

Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged

incident occurred as part of the applicant's intentional

criminal acts, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will

affect the course of the investigation.

6. This is a case where the applicant herein initially

filed a private complaint against accused Nos.1, 3 and 4

pertaining to the same subject matter and later on during

investigation, he turned out to be an accused. He has

..4..

2026:KER:12915

admitted that he received a total sum of Rs.76,11,500/- from

17 persons for the purpose of arranging visas to Norway.

According to him, it was the accused No.1, who undertook to

provide visas for the 17 persons and he acted only as a

middleman. However, the version of the victim is that

because of the assurance of the applicant that visas would be

provided, they parted with the money. At any rate, the fact

remains that, out of Rs.76,11,500/- collected by the

applicant, he had already handed over Rs.64,21,850/- to

accused No.1. According to him, he retained the balance

amount of Rs.11,89,650/- being the flight charges. Thus, the

main allegation is against accused No.1. Considering the

allegations made against the applicant, his custodial

interrogation seems unnecessary. For these reasons, I find

this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-arrest bail to the

applicant.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following

conditions:-

..5..

2026:KER:12915

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail in the event

of his arrest 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 arresting officer/investigating officer,

as the case may be.

(ii) The applicant shall fully cooperate with the

investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed

police custody for discovery, if any, as and when demanded.

(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

..6..

2026:KER:12915

investigation.

(vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala

without the permission of the trial Court.

(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of

bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of

violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional

court.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE APA

..7..

2026:KER:12915