[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Akshay C.S vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2026
2026:KER:13213
1
BAIL APPL. NO. 706 OF 2026
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. 706 OF 2026
CRIME NO.34/2026 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2026 IN BA NO.78 OF
2026 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:
AKSHAY C.S
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O SALESH, CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
SANTHI NAGAR, PONNOOKKARA P.O., THRISSUR,
PIN - 680306
BY ADV SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OFKERALA, ERNAKULUM,
PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:13213
2
BAIL APPL. NO. 706 OF 2026
ORDER
This application seeking anticipatory bail has been filed
by the 5th accused in Crime No.34 of 2026 of Ollur Police
Station, Thrissur District registered alleging the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 118 (2), 110, 296 (b)
and 126 (2) r/w Section 3 (5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of
the Arms Act.
2. The prosecution allegation is that on
04.01.2026 at about 6.30 hours, accused Nos.1 to 8, in
furtherance of their common intention, intercepted the motor
cycle in which the de-facto complainant and his friends were
travelling and attacked them with dangerous weapons. The
accused No.1 brandished a sword aiming at the neck of the
defacto complainant; fortunately, the friend of the defacto
complainant caught hold of the said sword, otherwise, he would
have sustained serious injuries which would have resulted in his
death. Hence, the accused are alleged to have committed the
offences as stated above.
2026:KER:13213
BAIL APPL. NO. 706 OF 2026
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the
allegations levelled against him and that he was arrayed as an
accused in this case on the basis of some surmises and
conjectures. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner
never concealed any intention to attack the defacto complainant
as alleged by the prosecution. According to the counsel, if at all
the case of the prosecution is believed as such, the offences
attributed against him would not be attracted. According to the
counsel, no serious overt act has been attributed to the
petitioner and there is no allegation of the use of any weapon by
him. On these premises, it was urged that the petitioner is
entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Per contra, the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application by highlighting the
serious nature of the offences alleged against the petitioner and
2026:KER:13213
BAIL APPL. NO. 706 OF 2026
his companions. According to the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor, although the petitioner had not used any weapon in
the commission of offence, specific overt acts are assigned to
him, and from the available inputs, it is well evident that he was
also sharing a common intention along with the other accused to
attack the de facto complainant.
6. The accusation that the petitioner, along with
other accused, attacked the defacto complainant with dangerous
weapons and inflicted serious injuries on him cannot be viewed
lightly. From a perusal of the available records, it is further
discernible that the accusation against the petitioner is prima
facie well founded. Any how, the main overt act is attributed to
the accused No.1. It was he who allegedly attempted to hack the
defacto complainant using a sword. When compared with the
accused No.1 and other accused, the role played by the petitioner
in the commission of offence stands on a lower pedestal. As
already stated, there is no allegation of use of any weapon by the
petitioner, and no serious overt acts are attributed to him.
2026:KER:13213
BAIL APPL. NO. 706 OF 2026
Moreover, from the nature of the allegations, it is evident that no
recovery needs to be effected at his instance. In short, the
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for the
progress of the investigation in this case. I am not unmindful of
the fact that some of the accused, including accused No.1, are yet
to be arrested in this case. However, I am at a loss to
understand how granting bail to the accused No.5 will deter the
investigating agency from effecting the arrest of accused No.1.
Hence, having regard to the nominal role attributed to the
petitioner in the commission of the offence and the stage of the
investigation, I am inclined to allow the bail application with the
following conditions:
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)
2026:KER:13213
BAIL APPL. NO. 706 OF 2026
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
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 any offence while
on bail.
7. It is made clear that if any of the above
2026:KER:13213
BAIL APPL. NO. 706 OF 2026
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
AS
2026:KER:13213
BAIL APPL. NO. 706 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 706 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TYPED COPY OF THE F.I STATEMENT IN CRIME
NO.34/2026 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR DISTRICT
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2026
IN B.A NO. 78/2026 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR
