Santhosh Davis vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 2034 Ker

Kerala High Court

Santhosh Davis vs State Of Kerala on 25 February, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

BA No.1129/2026



                                                  2026:KER:17181
                              : 1 :
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1947

                  BAIL APPL. NO. 1129 OF 2026

  CRIME NO.1204/2025 OF Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur
        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.02.2026 IN Bail Appl.
            NO.590 OF 2026 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.11:

            SANTHOSH DAVIS,
            AGED 51 YEARS,
            THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, ANJOOR, MUNDOOR,
            THRISSUR, PIN - 680541

            BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYABHANU(SR.)
            SHRI.K.ARAVIND MENON
            SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
            SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
            SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
            SRI.AJEESH K.SASI
            SMT.ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH
            SMT.SRUTHY K.K
            SRUTHY N. BHAT
            SHRI.JAYARAMAN S.
            SHRI.AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY
            SMT. DHANYA SUNNY
            SMT. ANN MILKA GEORGE


RESPONDENT/STATE:

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

            SMT.SREEJA V., SR. PP

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 BA No.1129/2026



                                                    2026:KER:17181
                               : 2 :
                               ORDER

This is the second application for pre-arrest bail filed by

the accused No.11 in Crime No.1204/2025 of Peramangalam

Police Station, Thrissur District under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS).

2. The applicant is alleged to have committed the

offences punishable under Sections 420 and 408 r/w Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case in short is that the

accused Nos.1 to 12, including the applicant, being one of the

Directors of the Board of Directors in the Mundoor Vyapari

Vyavasaayi Sahakarana Sangham, issued loans to 500 fictitious

persons and misappropriated an amount of `3.53 crores during

the period from 2016 to 2018 by forging applications and thereby

committed the above offences.

4. I have heard Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, the learned

senior counsel for the applicant and Smt.Sreeja V., the learned

Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned Senior counsel for the applicant

submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely

implicated in the case. The learned Senior counsel also submitted

that certain vital documents which would show the innocence of

the applicant could not be produced at the time of consideration

2026:KER:17181

of the first bail application.

6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the

intentional criminal act of the applicant, and if he is released on

bail, it will affect the course of the investigation. The learned

Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the applicant has not

pleaded or established any change in circumstances of the case

since the dismissal of the first bail application filed by him. The

learned Senior Public Prosecutor also submitted that, in the earlier

proceedings, all the points available to the applicant have been

urged and negatived by this court. In the absence of any change

in fact situation or in law after the dismissal of the first

application, the second application is not maintainable, submitted

the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The law regarding the grant of pre-arrest bail is

well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of

course. Grant of pre-arrest bail to some extent interferes in the

sphere of investigation of an offence, and hence, the court must

be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of

anticipatory bail. The extraordinary power of the High Court and

the Court of Session to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of

the BNSS could be exercised with a significant amount of

prudence, care, and caution and only when a special case is made

2026:KER:17181

out, that too, recording reasons thereof. While exercising powers

under Section 482 of the BNSS, the Court is duty-bound to strike

a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and

the investigational right of the police.

8. The order granting or refusing to grant a pre-

arrest bail application is a final order, and the entertainment of a

second application essentially leads to a review of the earlier

order. However, a second or subsequent application for pre-arrest

bail is not completely barred. It cannot be entertained in routine

as well. An accused must establish the change in the

circumstances sufficient to persuade the court to invoke its

extraordinary jurisdiction to maintain the application for pre-arrest

bail for the second time. A material change in fact situation or law

is sine qua non for a second application for pre-arrest bail. The

three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.

Pappu Yadav [(2005 (2) KLT SN 4 (C.No. 3) SC =AIR 2005 SC 921]

considered the legality and propriety of successive bail

applications. It was held in paragraph 20 thus:

"Even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application."

Following the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in

2026:KER:17181

Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra), this Court, in Vineeth v. State of

Kerala (2015 (5) KHC 224), held that successive bail applications

without showing any change in the fact situation or circumstance

requiring the invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the

High Court or the Court of Session under S.438 of Cr.P.C. (Section

482 of BNSS) can only be regarded as an abuse of the process of

the court. The Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Sudip Sen

v. State of W.B. (2010 Cri. L.J. 4628), after reiterating the principle

that there is no general bar or impediment in moving a second

application for pre-arrest bail, held that a person will be entitled to

move the High Court or the Court of Session for the second time

only on the ground of substantial change in the facts and

circumstances of the case due to subsequent events. It was

clarified that the accused would not be entitled to move the

second application on the ground that the Court, on earlier

occasion, failed to consider any particular aspect or material on

record or that any point then available to him was not agitated

before the Court. The Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in

Ganesh Raj v. State of Rajasthan [2006 (1) KLT SN 15 (C.No.25)

Raj.(F.B.)] took the view that second or subsequent application

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (Section 482 of BNSS) can be filed if

there is a change in the fact situation or in law which require the

earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has

2026:KER:17181

become obsolete. A Single Bench of this Court in Muhammed

Ziyad v. State of Kerala & Another (2015 (4) KLJ 22) deprecated

filing successive bail applications without legal justification.

Another Single Bench of this Court in Pandi v. State of Kerala (2018

(4) KLT 249) held that subsequent application for pre-arrest bail

on the same grounds without any change in circumstances is

liable to be rejected even summarily.

9. Thus, even though there is no absolute embargo

in filing the subsequent application for pre-arrest bail, it can be

entertained only if there is a substantial change in the facts and

circumstances of the case, which requires the earlier view be

interfered with or where, the earlier finding has become obsolete.

Ordinarily, the grounds canvassed in the earlier application cannot

be permitted to be reurged in the subsequent application. Nor

could the accused in the subsequent application contend that the

Court, while considering the earlier bail application, failed to

advert to any fact or material on record. A fact which was not in

existence at the time of considering the earlier bail application but

came into existence subsequently alone could be considered a

change in facts and circumstances (See Suresh v. State of Kerala

(2023 (4) KLT 696).

10. Coming to the facts of the case, the first bail

application was rejected by this court taking into account the

2026:KER:17181

gravity of the offence, the complicity of the applicant in the crime,

the stage of investigation and the requirement of the applicant for

custodial interrogation. This court on perusal of the entire case

diary and after hearing the submission of both sides, found that

the accusation made against the applicant is very serious in

nature and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his

part. There is no change in any of these circumstances.

11. The applicant has no case that the documents

now sought to be produced were not in existence at the time of

consideration of the earlier bail application. That apart, those

documents would not prove that the applicant has no connection

with the crime. The second application for pre-arrest bail filed by

the applicant does not spell out any change in the fact situation or

circumstance of the case after the dismissal of the first bail

application.

The applicant has not made out a case to invoke the

extra ordinary jurisdiction vested with this court under Section 482

of the BNSS for the second time. Accordingly, the bail application

is dismissed.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp

2026:KER:17181

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 1129 OF 2026

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1204 OF 2025 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 17.01.2026 IN CRL. M.C. NO. 2290/2025 OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON DATED 10.02.2026 IN B. A NO. 590/2026 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03.11.2025 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF ASST.

REGISTRAR GENERAL, CORPORATIVE SOCIETY, THRISSUR Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE, DATED 13.11.2025, ISSUED BY THE OFFICER, MUNDOOR VYAPARI VYAVASAAYI SAHAKARANA SANGHAM, DEMANDING THE REPAYMENT OF THE LOANS AVAILED BY THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER Annexure A6 Series TRUE COPY OF THE PERSONAL LEDGER REPORT OF ALICE DAVIS(MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER) ISSUED BY THE MUNDOOR VYAPARI VYAVASAAYI CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. IN IN LOAN NUMBERS SL4272/16, SL4348/16, AND SL4455/17 Annexure A7 Series TRUE COPY OF THE PERSONAL LEDGER REPORT OF DAVIS T. I (FATHER OF THE PETITIONER) ISSUED BY THE MUNDOOR VYAPARI VYAVASAAYI CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. IN LOAN NUMBERS

Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE PERSONAL LEDGER REPORT OF SUHAS DAVIS (BROTHER OF THE PETITIONER) ISSUED BY THE MUNDOOR VYAPARI VYAVASAAYI CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. IN

Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE PERSONAL LEDGER REPORT OF SONIYA SANTHOSH (WIFE OF THE PETITIONER) ISSUED BY THE MUNDOOR VYAPARI VYAVASAAYI CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. IN

2026:KER:17181

Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE ACCUSED NOS. 3 TO 12 EXCEPT ACCUSED NO.

5 AGAINST ACCUSED NO. 1&2 DATED 05.12.2025 Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS OF THE PETITIONER, ISSUED BY THE MUNDOOR VYAPARI VYAVASAAYI CO-OP SOCIETY LTD.

DATED 07-05-2019 Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER-IN-LAW BY MUNDOOR VYAPARI VYAVASAAYI CO-OP SOCIETY LTD DATED 26.08.2022