Nandu Mon M vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 2127 Ker

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2127 Ker
Judgement Date : 26 February, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Nandu Mon M vs State Of Kerala on 26 February, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

                                                              2026:KER:17564


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

    THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026/7TH PHALGUNA, 1947

                       BAIL APPL. NO. 939 OF 2026

            CRIME NO.16/2026 OF MALAYINKEEZH POLICE STATION,

                           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONERS:

    1        NANDU MON M
             AGED 32 YEARS
             NANDU NIVAS, EZHAKODE,PERUKAVU P.O,
             PIN - 695573

    2        ABHILASH M
             AGED 31 YEARS
             KOLACHIRA KEEZHEPANAYIL VEEDU PALOTTUVILA
             MALAYINKEEZHU P.O., PIN - 695571

             BY ADV SHRI.ANANDA SUBRAMANIAM

RESPONDENTS:

    1        STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             PIN - 682031

    2        SHO MALAYINKEEZHU
             MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION,
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             PIN - 682031

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


     THIS    BAIL   APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
26.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 939 OF 2026
                                     2
                                                          2026:KER:17564


                               ORDER

This application is filed under Section 482 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short,

BNSS), seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The applicants are the accused Nos.1 and

2 in Crime No.16/2026 of Malayinkeezhu Police Station,

Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are

punishable under Sections 294(b), 115(2), 118(1) and

324(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on

31.12.2025 at about 11:15 p.m., when the de facto

complainant reached at a place near Iratta Kalunku

Junction as per the phone call of the accused No.1, the

accused No.2 uttered obscene words against the de facto

complainant, kicked on his chest, and when he fell down,

the accused No.1 by using a granite stone, hit him on his

forehead, causing injuries. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and

2 kicked and dragged the de facto complainant and the

accused No.1 took the mobile phone from the pocket of the BAIL APPL. NO. 939 OF 2026

2026:KER:17564

de facto complainant and threw it in a nearby canal,

causing a loss of Rs.23,000/-.

4. I have heard Sri. Ananda Subramaniam,

the learned counsel for the applicants and Smt. Sreeja.V,

the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case

diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants

submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been

falsely implicated in the above crime. The counsel further

submitted that no materials are on record to connect the

applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled

to get bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the

other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as

a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicants, and

if they are released on bail at this stage, it will affect the

course of the investigation.

6. Even though the alleged incident had

taken place on 31.12.2025 at 11:15 p.m., the complaint

was filed and FIR was lodged only on 06.01.2026. There is

no explanation for the delay. That apart, even though the BAIL APPL. NO. 939 OF 2026

2026:KER:17564

applicants were known to the de facto complainant, their

names were not disclosed in the accident-cum-wound

certificate. The de facto complainant was under the

influence of alcohol at the time of the incident.

Considering the allegations made against the applicants,

their custodial interrogation seems unnecessary. For these

reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-

arrest bail to the applicants.

In the result, the application is allowed on the

following conditions:-

(i) The applicants shall be released on bail in

the event of their arrest on executing a bond for

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two

solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of

the arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may

be.

(ii) The applicants shall fully cooperate with

the investigation, including subjecting themselves to the

deemed police custody for discovery, if any, as and when

demanded.

BAIL APPL. NO. 939 OF 2026

2026:KER:17564

(iii) The applicants shall appear before the

investigating officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m.

every Saturday until further orders. They shall also appear

before the investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The applicants shall not commit any

offence of a like nature while on bail.

(v) The applicants shall not attempt to

contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or

through any other person, or in any other way try to

tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or