[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ajeesh Alias Abhilash vs State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:12886
CRL.MC NO. 718 OF 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 23RD MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 718 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2025 IN MC NO.72 OF 2023
OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT,THIRUVALLA
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/ACCUSED:
AJEESH ALIAS ABHILASH,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O SREEDHARAN, MUNDANARIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM
P.O., NIRANAM, PULIKEEZHU, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN -
689621
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.R.SASITH
SMT.R.K.CHIRUTHA
SMT.ANJANA SURESH.E
SMT.REETHU JACOB
SMT.HASNA JABIL
SMT.ANJITHA S.
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
REVENUE TOWER, THIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN -
689101
2026:KER:12886
CRL.MC NO. 718 OF 2026
2
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN -
689101
SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:12886
CRL.MC NO. 718 OF 2026
3
C.S.DIAS,J.
====================
Crl. M.C.No. 718 of 2026
------------------------------------ --
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the counter-petitioner in M.C.No.72 of
2023 on the file of the Court of the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Thiruvalla ('court', in short).
2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal
Miscellaneous Case that, alleging that the petitioner is an
accused in several crimes, he was directed to execute a bond
on 19.04.2024, to maintain good behaviour for a period of
three years, as envisaged under Section 129 read with
Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
('BNSS', in short). Accordingly, the petitioner executed a
bond in favour of the above court, with two sureties. Alleging
that the petitioner has got involved in Crime No.850 of 2024
registered by the Kuthiyathodu Police Station, Alappuzha,
for allegedly committing the offences punishable under
2026:KER:12886
CRL.MC NO. 718 OF 2026
Sections 20(b)(ii)B and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act', in short),
the 3rd respondent filed a report before the above court, to
forfeit the bond executed by the petitioner. Acting upon the
said report, the above court, by the impugned Annexure A3
order passed under Section 141 of the BNSS, has directed
the petitioner to be arrested and detained in judicial custody
for the remaining bond period, i.e., till 19.04.2027. Annexure
A3 order is ex facie illegal and arbitrary, because the court
has failed to issue notice to the petitioner, afford him an
opportunity of being heard, or taking any evidence, and
without recording any reasons. By Annexure A5 order, this
Court, while considering a bail application, has categorically
held that the mere involvement in another crime is not a
ground to cancel the bail. Instead, there should be
supervening circumstances to cancel the bail. The principles
in Annexure A5 order are squarely applicable in a
proceeding under Sections 129 read with 130 of the BNSS.
2026:KER:12886
CRL.MC NO. 718 OF 2026
Moreover, the petitioner has been judicial custody for the
past 50 days. If Annexure A3 order is confirmed, the
petitioner would have to undergo detention for another one
year and two months, which will deny him a proper
opportunity to defend the crimes registered against him, and
in turn would deny him an opportunity of a fair trial and be
an infringement of his right to life guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, Annexure A3 order
may be quashed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The above court had initiated proceedings under
Section 129 BNSS against the petitioner, and ordered him to
execute a bond to maintain good behaviour for a period of
three years on the allegation that the petitioner is an
accused in three cases, namely, Crime Nos.1182 of 2019 and
249 of 2023, registered by the Pulikeezhu Police Station and
Crime No.495 of 2018 registered by the Peramangalam
Police Station, Thrissur. The petitioner, along with his
2026:KER:12886
CRL.MC NO. 718 OF 2026
sureties, had executed a bond in favour of the above court,
undertaking that the petitioner would maintain good
behaviour for the period of three years.
5. Alleging that the petitioner got involved in Crime
No.850 of 2024 registered by the Kuthiyathodu Police
Station, Alappuzha, the 3rd respondent filed report before the
court requesting to forfeit the bond executed by the
petitioner and his sureties and detain the petitioner in
judicial custody for the remaining bond period.
6. Aggrieved by the forfeiture of the bond initiated
against sureties, they filed Crl.M.C.No.4440 of 2024 before
this Court. By Annexure A2 order, this Court, taking note of
Section 141(1) of the BNSS, quashed the proceedings as
against the sureties of the petitioner. Nonetheless, this Court
directed the above court to take action against the
petitioner, in accordance with law. Consequently, Annexure
A3 order was passed under Section 141 of the BNSS.
7. In the above context, it is profitable to extract
Section 141 of the BNSS, which reads thus:
2026:KER:12886
CRL.MC NO. 718 OF 2026
"141. Imprisonment in default of security.- (1) (a) If any person
ordered to give security under section 125 or section 136 does not
give such security on or before the date on which the period for
which such security is to be given commences, he shall, except in
the case next hereinafter mentioned, be committed to prison, or, if
he is already in prison, be detained in prison until such period
expires or until within such period he gives the security to the Court
or Magistrate who made the order requiring it;
(b) if any person after having executed a bond or bail bond
for keeping the peace in pursuance of an order of a Magistrate
under section 136, is proved, to the satisfaction of such Magistrate
or his successor-in-office, to have committed breach of the bond or
bail bond, such Magistrate or successor-in-office may, after
recording the grounds of such proof, order that the person be
arrested and detained in prison until the expiry of the period of the
bond or bail bond and such order shall be without prejudice to any
other punishment or forfeiture to which the said person may be
liable in accordance with law.
(2) When such person has been ordered by a Magistrate to give
security for a period exceeding one year, such Magistrate shall, if
such person does not give such security as aforesaid, issue a
warrant directing him to be detained in prison pending the orders
of the Sessions Judge and the proceedings shall be laid, as soon as
conveniently may be, before such Court.
(3) Such Court, after examining such proceedings and requiring
from the Magistrate any further information or evidence which it
thinks necessary, and after giving the concerned person a
reasonable opportunity of being heard, may pass such order on the
case as it thinks fit: Provided that the period (if any) for which any
person is imprisoned for failure to give security shall not exceed
three years.
(4) If security has been required in the course of the same
proceeding from two or more persons in respect of any one of whom
the proceedings are referred to the Sessions Judge under sub-
section (2) such reference shall also include the case of any other of
such persons who has been ordered to give security, and the
provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall, in that event, apply to
the case of such other person also, except that the period (if any)
for which he may be imprisoned, shall not exceed the period for
which he was ordered to give security.
2026:KER:12886
CRL.MC NO. 718 OF 2026
(5) A Sessions Judge may in his discretion transfer any proceedings
laid before him under sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) to an
Additional Sessions Judge and upon such transfer, such Additional
Sessions Judge may exercise the powers of a Sessions Judge under
this section in respect of such proceedings.
(6) If the security is tendered to the officer in charge of the jail, he
shall forthwith refer the matter to the Court or Magistrate who
made the order, and shall await the orders of such Court or
Magistrate.
(7) Imprisonment for failure to give security for keeping the peace
shall be simple.
(8) Imprisonment for failure to give security for good behaviour
shall, where the proceedings have been taken under section 127, be
simple, and, where the proceedings have been taken under section
128 or section 129, be rigorous or simple as the Court or
Magistrate in each case directs."
8. A reading of the above provisions substantiates
that, the court has to record grounds of proof to order the
person to be arrested and detained. Furthermore, as per
sub-section (3) of Section 141, the concerned person has to
be afforded an opportunity of being heard.
9. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner was
not served with a copy of the report or afforded an
opportunity of being heard, before the impugned order was
passed.
2026:KER:12886
CRL.MC NO. 718 OF 2026
10. While considering the provisions for cancellation of
bail, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Imran v. Muhammed
Bhava and Another [2022 SCC OnLine SC 496] has held
that there should be supervening circumstances to cancel
the bail granted to an accused person. The very same view
was earlier held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolat
Ram and others v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349].
12. In the present case, it is only on the basis of the
report filed by the 3 rd respondent that the impugned order is
passed.
13. On a careful analysis of the order, I do not find any
application of the mind on the part of the above court.
Instead, the court has only acted upon the report of the
Investigating Officer, without following the due procedure
envisaged under Section 141 BNSS, and in violation of the
rudimentary principles of natural justice.
14. On an overall consideration of the facts, the
materials on record and the law on the point, particularly,
2026:KER:12886
CRL.MC NO. 718 OF 2026
that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to file his
objections to the report filed by the Investigating Officer and
was not afforded an opportunity of being heard, I am
satisfied that Annexure A3 order suffers from errors of law
and is liable to be set aside. Thus, I am convinced that this is
a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under
Section 528 of the BNSS.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C. in
the following manner:
i) Annexure A3 order is set aside;
ii) The above court is directed to forthwith release the
petitioner, who in turn is directed to execute a bond for
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent
sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the above
court, undertaking not to leave the territorial limits of
the Pulikeezhu Police Station, until a final decision is
taken on the report filed by the 3rd respondent;
iii) The above court is directed to serve a copy of the report
of the 3rd respondent on the petitioner, who in turn may
file his objections to the report within three weeks from
the date of receipt of the report ;
2026:KER:12886
CRL.MC NO. 718 OF 2026
iv) On filing the objection, the above court is directed to
consider and dispose the report, in accordance with
law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of
being heard;
v) The petitioner shall also specifically undertake in the
bond, not to get involved in any other crime.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
dkr
2026:KER:12886
CRL.MC NO. 718 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 718 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
COURT OF SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
THIRUVALLA ON 28.02.2025 IN M.C NO.
72/2023.
Annexure-A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.C
NO. 4440/2025 DATED 27.11.2025 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Annexure-A3 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.12.2025
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUB-DIVISIONAL
MAGISTRATE, THIRUVALLA IN M.C NO. 72/2023.
Annexure-A4 HE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.12.2025
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUB-DIVISIONAL
MAGISTRATE, THIRUVALLA IN M.C NO. 72/2023.
Annexure-A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
03.03.2023 IN CRL.M.C NO. 854/2023 PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
