[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Achu Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2026
2026:KER:13294
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 652 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN BA NO.74 OF 2025
OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THODUPUZHA ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN BA NO.74 OF 2026 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THODUPUZHA
PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:
ACHU SHAJI
AGED 25 YEARS
KANJIRATHUNKAL, VAZHAVARA P O,VTC, KALKOONTHAL,
IDUKKI DISTRICT,, PIN - 685515.
BY ADV SMT.M.J.SAJITHA
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
SMT.SREEJA V., SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No. 652 of 2026 2
2026:KER:13294
JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.
...............................................
B.A. No. 652 of 2026
...............................................
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This is an application filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (for short 'BNSS'),
seeking anticipatory bail.
2. The petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime
No.1784/2025 of Kattappana Police Station, Idukki, registered
alleging offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(4),
191(2), 191(3), 190, 296(b), 333, 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 351(1)
and 324(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that accused Nos. 1 to 15
formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution
of thier common object they trespassed into the house of one
Arun Chandran, the friend of the de facto complainant, and the 1 st
accused struck on the head of Arun chandran with an iron rod and
the other accused assaulted him using stick and by their hands
and also committed mischief by smashing the window panes and
damaging the back door of the house. Hence, the accused are
alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.
2026:KER:13294
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations leveled against
him and he was arrayed as an accused in this case on the basis of
mistaken identity. According to the counsel, if at all the
prosecution case is believed, the maximum offence that would
attract the petitioner is under Section 115(1) of BNS. The learned
counsel further urged that even the prosecution does not have a
case that the accused had used any weapon in the commission of
the offence. According to the learned counsel, when compared
with the other remaining accused, the accusation against the
petitioner stands on a lower pedestal, and his custodial
interrogation is unwarranted for the progress of the investigation
in this case. On the said premise, the learned counsel sought pre-
arrest bail.
6. Per contra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor
opposed the application by highlighting the serious nature of the
offence attributed in this case. Moreover, the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is a history sheeter
registered with three other criminal cases.
2026:KER:13294
7. The allegation that the petitioner, along with his
companions, unleashed violence in broad daylight and attacked
the de facto complainant with dangerous weapons after
trespassing into his house cannot be viewed lightly. From the
available inputs, it is gatherable that the accusation against the
petitioner is, prima facie, well founded. Anyhow, as rightly pointed
out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no allegation
that the petitioner, who is arrayed as the fourth accused in this
case, used any weapon in the commission of the offence. The
overt act attributed to him is that he fisted the complainant with
his bare hands. Although the same is not a reason to justify the
criminal act attributed to him, particularly when there is an
allegation that the offence was committed in prosecution of the
common object of the unlawful assembly in which he was having
membership, it can still be taken into consideration while
considering a petition of this nature.
8. Moreover, accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5, and 6 were already
arrested in this case. The weapons allegedly used by them in the
commission of the offence have already been recovered. As there
is no allegation of any use of a weapon by the 4th accused, no
recovery of any weapon needs to be effected at his instance.
Virtually, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all
2026:KER:13294
necessary in this case. I am not unmindful of the submission made
by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has
criminal antecedents. However, the same alone is not a reason to
decline bail to the petitioner, particularly when it is open for the
authorities to take action under preventive detention laws, if
necessary.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer within 10 days from today and shall undergo
interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer
proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be
released on bail on executing a bond for
Rs.50,000/-- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned.
3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on every alternate Friday, for a period of
three months or till the completion of the
investigation, whichever event occurs first.
4. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating
officer for interrogation as and when he is required
2026:KER:13294
to do so in writing, apart from the days mentioned
above, till the completion of the investigation.
5. The petitioner shall co-operate with the
investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly,
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him or her from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to the investigating officer.
6. Petitioner shall not commit an offence while on bail.
It is made clear that if any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner, the prosecution is at liberty to approach
the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail in accordance with
law.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
mea
2026:KER:13294
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 652 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
1784/2015 OF KATTAPPANA POLIC STATION
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JUDGE
THODUPUZHA IN B A. NO.74/2026DATED
21.01.2026
Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ALONG WITH
THE RECEIPT ISSUED THEREOF DATED
14.03.2025
