[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sandeep vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2026

                                                              2026:KER:13257


                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. 679 OF 2026

            CRIME NO.2571/2025 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION,

                           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

  AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2026 IN CRMC NO.3677 OF 2025 OF

  ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV / I ADDITIONAL

    MACT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

             SANDEEP
             AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. P. KRISHNAN,
             CHEMMARATHU VEEDU, VILAKATTUKONAM, VALANCHERI P.O.,
             KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695601

             BY ADV SRI.R.GOPAN

RESPONDENT/STATE:

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

             BY ADV.
             SMT.SREEJA V., SR. PP


     THIS    BAIL   APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
13.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 679 OF 2026
                                           2
                                                                   2026:KER:13257

                                    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 sole accused in Crime

No.2571/2025 of Kilimanoor Police Station,

Thiruvananthapuram District, registered alleging offences

punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 118(1) and

115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows;

Due to an animosity that the de facto complainant

had demanded the accused to return the money that was

borrowed by the accused, on 20.11.2025 at 08:15 p.m, the

accused invited the de facto complainant to a place called

Vilakkottukonam under the pretext to give back the money

and on reaching there the accused showered obscene

words and assaulted the de facto complainant using an iron

rod. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the

aforementioned offences.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the BAIL APPL. NO. 679 OF 2026

2026:KER:13257

petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the

allegations levelled against him. According to him, on the

previous day of the registration of this case, a case has

been registered against the de facto complainant alleging

commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2),

118(1), 115(2), 296(b) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va)

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the strength of the FIS given by

the petitioner herein. According to the counsel, as a

counter blast to the said case, the present case is foisted

against the petitioner by the de facto complainant with the

help of the police. On these premise, it is urged that the

petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

6. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor

opposed the application by highlighting that the

investigation in this case is in the preliminary stage and

granting of anticipatory bail will hamper the smooth course

of the investigation.

BAIL APPL. NO. 679 OF 2026

2026:KER:13257

7. From the contentions raised by the

learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is discernible that,

prior to the registration of the case against the petitioner, a

case has been registered against the de facto complainant

alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections

126(2), 118(1), 115(2), 296(b) and 351(2) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)

(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In order to

substantiate the said fact, the copy of the FIR registered

against the de facto complainant is seen produced along

with this bail application. Evidently, it was after the

registration of the said case, the present case is registered

against the petitioner. However, registration of such a

case alone is not a reason to enter into an automatic

conclusion that the subsequent case registered is a cooked

up one. However, when there is a case and counter, a

holistic investigation is highly necessary to find out how the

incident started, developed and ended. Moreover, when

there is already a case registered against the de facto

complainant, the chance of false implication cannot be BAIL APPL. NO. 679 OF 2026

2026:KER:13257

ruled out abruptly. Therefore, a conclusive finding

regarding the maintainability of the present case registered

against the petitioner can be determined only after a full

fledged investigation. However, in the order dismissing the

anticipatory bail application filed before the Sessions Court

by the petitioner, it is recorded that the de facto

complainant had sustained only minor injuries. Likewise,

no criminal antecedents are seen pointed out against the

petitioner.

8. Having regard to all the above said

aspects, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of

the petitioner is not necessary for the progress of the

investigation in this case. Moreover, the presence and co-

operation of the petitioner in the ongoing probe can be well

ensured by imposing stringent conditions.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances

of this case, this application is allowed with the following

directions:

i. The petitioner shall appear before the

Investigating Officer within 10 days from today and shall

undergo interrogation.

BAIL APPL. NO. 679 OF 2026

2026:KER:13257

ii. 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.

iii. The petitioner shall appear before the

Investigating Officer on every alternate Saturday, between

10:00 a.m and 12:00 p.m, for a period of three months or

till the completion of the investigation, whichever event

occurs first.

iv. The petitioner shall appear before the

investigating officer for interrogation as and when he is

required to do so in writing, apart from the days mentioned

above, till the completion of the investigation.

v. 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.

BAIL APPL. NO. 679 OF 2026

2026:KER:13257

vi. Petitioner shall not commit any offence

while on bail.

vii. Needless to mention, it would be well

within the powers of the investigating officer to investigate

the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the

information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the

petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and

another [2020 (1) KHC 663].

viii. 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 ARK BAIL APPL. NO. 679 OF 2026

2026:KER:13257

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 679 OF 2026

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.2571/2025 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION.