[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sudheesh P vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2026:KER:16592
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026/5TH PHALGUNA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 917 OF 2026
CRIME NO.975/2025 OF PAYYAVOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.02.2026 IN BA NO.80 OF 2026 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT / RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
THALASSERY
PETITIONER:
SUDHEESH P
AGED 46 YEARS, SON OF DASAN,
RATHEESH NIVAS, PERAVOOR P.O., PERAVOOR,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670673
BY ADVS.
SMT.RESHMA E.
SMT.ASHIKA BEEGAM S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULUM,
PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERAVUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670673
BY ADV.
SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2026,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 917 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:16592
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 sole accused in Crime
No.975/2025 of Peravur Police Station, Kannur District.
The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 409
and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that,
during the period from 03.11.2020 to 16.06.2021, the
applicant with dishonest intention of cheating, had received
20 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the de facto
complainant and gave a loan of Rs.7,20,700/-. When the
de facto complainant came to take back the gold
ornaments by paying the loan amount, the applicant was
not ready to return the gold ornaments. He without the
permission of the de facto complainant, had pledged the
above gold ornaments before KSFE, Kolayad Branch.
Though the de facto complainant repeatedly demanded for
BAIL APPL. NO. 917 OF 2026
2026:KER:16592
the gold ornaments, the applicant was not ready to return
the same. Though there was mediation and he had agreed
to pay the value of the gold ornaments, he did not pay the
amount. Thereby, the applicant committed the above
offences.
4. I have heard Smt. Reshma E., the learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri. K.A.Noushad, 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 present case. 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 Senior 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. The law regarding the grant or refusal of
pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be
BAIL APPL. NO. 917 OF 2026
2026:KER:16592
granted as a matter of course. The power under Section
482 of BNSS could be exercised only when a special case is
made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. Perusal of
the case diary reveals that the accusation made against
the applicant is very serious in nature, and it prima facie
shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. In the FIS,
there are specific allegations against the applicant. Even
though the applicant has taken a contention that he has
retired from the firm as per Annexure A4, there is nothing
on record to show that the retirement was communicated
to the Registrar of Firms and it has come into effect.
7. The investigation is in a preliminary
stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is
necessary for the investigation. As rightly argued by the
learned Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the applicant
influencing the witnesses and interfering with the
investigation cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail.
Considering the gravity of the offence and stage of the
investigation, I am of the view that this is not a fit case
where the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court
BAIL APPL. NO. 917 OF 2026
2026:KER:16592
under Section 482 of BNSS could be invoked. The bail
application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
ARK
BAIL APPL. NO. 917 OF 2026
2026:KER:16592
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 917 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 05.11.2025 IN
CRIME NO. 975 OF 2025 OF PERAVOOR POLICE
STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2025 IN
CRL.M.C 1815 OF 2025 BEFORE THE SESSIONS
COURT THALASSERY.
ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2026
IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.80/2026 BEFORE THE
SESSIONS COURT THALASSERY.
ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RETIREMENT DEED EXECUTED
ON 18.02.2015.
ANNEXURE A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLATION CERTIFICATE
DATED 02.06.2023.
