[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Mr.Shan S. Nath vs State Of Kerala on 27 March, 2026
2026:KER:27931
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1948
BAIL APPL. NO. 1237 OF 2026
CRIME NO.1179/2025 OF Kanjiramkulam Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
MR.SHAN S. NATH, AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O. SRI. P. SOMANATHAN, NOW WORKING ASSISTANT MOTOR
VEHICLE INSPECTOR, RTO OFFICE KOZHIKODE RESIDING AT
CHATHAYAM, KUZHYAKKADU, MANCHAVILAKAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695503.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SHRI.ABDUL RASHEED N.
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695524.
3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
NEYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695151.
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI RAJESH A,
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.03.2026, THE COURT ON 27.03.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:27931
B.A.No.1237/2026 2
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
B.A.No.1237 of 2026
================================
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2026
ORDER
The 1st accused in Crime No.1179 of 2025 on the files of the
Kanjiramkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this
anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (`BNSS' for short).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/1 st accused
and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the records placed by
the petitioner as well as the case diary and report submitted by the
Investigating Officer.
3. The prosecution allegations as stated in the report of the
Investigating Officer and as borne out from the case diary read as under:
"(i) The above case is registered as Crime
1179/2025 U/Sec. 308(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(`BNS' for short) & Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
(Amendment) Act 2018 (`PC Act, 2018' for short) at Kanjiramkulam
2026:KER:27931
Police station on 05.10.2025 with the applicant as accused 1 on the
basis of the complaint received from Sri. Ayyanar age 25, S/O Kani,
Kakkanji North Door No 13, Sivagiri, Sivagiri Taluk Kanniyakumary
Dist. Tamil Nadu State on the allegation that the accused 1/applicant
and accused 2 demanded and accepted illegal gratification for
refraining from imposing fine on a Taurus vehicle driven by the de-
facto complainant.
(ii) It is submitted that the case is that on
14.10.2025 at about 02.00 Hrs, while the complainant was returning
after unloading the granite pieces at work site of Vizhinjam Port, the
accused one and two (A1 & A2) intercepted the tarrus lorry at
Kanjirmkulam by-pass. A1 informed the complainant that Rs.1 Lakh
was liable to be imposed on the said lorry. There after A1 demanded
a sum of Rs.20,000/- as illegal gratification for refraining from
imposing the said fine. A1 intimidated the complainant, forcibly took
possession of the ignition key of the vehicle, and there by restrained
him. Under threat and coercion, A1 obtained Rs.10000/- in cash
from the complainant and compelled him to transfer Rs.5000/-
through google pay form phone number of his employer. Additionally
an amount of Rs.2000/- transferred from the complainant account to
the account of A2.
(iii) It is submitted that the applicant is an
Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector worked at the Regional Transport
Office (Enforcement) Thiruvananthapuram and a public servant
under the state government of Kerala and continuing working at
Regional Transport office at Kozhikodu.
(iv) It is submitted that the second accused
is a private person acting as an intermediary to the 1st accused.
2026:KER:27931
(v) On investigation it is revealed that on
the day of the alleged incident, the applicant was on duty and along
with accused 2 intercepted the complainant's vehicle (TN 31 CH
2666). The applicant intimidated the complainant, spoke the vehicle
owner via accused 2's mobile phone and demanded Rs.20000/- as
illegal gratification to refrain from imposing a fine."
4. While canvassing anticipatory bail to the 1st accused,
who admittedly working as an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector at the
Regional Transport Office, Enforcement, Trivandrum, as a public servant,
the learned counsel for the petitioner raised multiple contentions to
substantiate that the petitioner is innocent and he has no role in the matter
of demand and acceptance of the bribe, as alleged by the prosecution at the
helm of the 1st accused. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the 2nd accused Mr.Ratheesh was a temporary employee at the
R.T.A Office, Parassala, and was terminated from service. Thereafter, he
has been conducting a driving school and acting as an agent of transport
carriages, especially, national permit transport vehicles. It is pointed out
that national permit lorries would require renewal of the authorisation
every year and when such vehicles would be found without authorisation,
the same would be detained until the authorisation got renewed and fine
2026:KER:27931
would be imposed. The owners of such vehicles from Tamil Nadu
threatened the officers of the Department for regular checking of the
vehicles and imposition of fine. In this regard, one of the Assistant Motor
Vehicles Inspectors, the Regional Transport Office (Enforcement), had
submitted Annexure 5 complaint on 23.11.2025 to the superior, which was
forwarded to the SHO, Fort Station, by the superior officer. The sum and
substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the petitioner is innocent and he has no role in this occurrence and
therefore he may be released on anticipatory bail. Involvement of the
accused in Annexure 5 and Annexure 6 crimes also is pointed out to justify
the innocence of the petitioner.
5. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor produced the case
diary and submitted the details of the case with reference to paragraphs 7
to 15 of the report of the Investigating Officer dated 16.03.2026.
Paragraphs 7 to 15 read as under:
"(7) It is submitted the investigation revealed that the
applicant forcibly took possession of the ignition key of the
complainant's vehicle and there by restrained him, caused the
vehicle owner to transfer Rs.5000/- and the complaint to transfer
2026:KER:27931
Rs. 2000/- via Google pay into the account of the second accused.
(8) It is submitted that the voice clip suspected to be that of the
applicant was seized from the vehicle owners mobile phone and
submitted to the court along with forwarding letter for Forensic
analysis.
(9) It is submitted that the second accused is arrested and
remanded.
(10) It is submitted that the case has been registered under the
relevant section of Prevention of Corruption Act as the applicant
is a Govt. Employee and a public servant.
(11) It is submitted that the Investigation of the case is not
completed and so many documental and oral evidence has to be
collected.
(12) It is submitted that the voice sample of the applicant has to
be collected and analyzed scientifically.
(13) It is submitted that in view of the gravity of the offence
alleged, the abuse of official position by the petitioner, the prime
facie material collected during investigation, and the likely hood
of influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence.
(14) It is submitted that case No. 1034/2025 was registered and
investigated by the Poovar police station under section 308(2),
3(5) BNS. The investigation suggests the involvement of an AMVI
and identify the applicant as a suspected accused for an offence
committed in a similar manner on the same day.
(15) It is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to dismiss the bail application No. 1237/2026 pertaining
to the crime No. 1179/2025 of Kanjiramkulam police station in
2026:KER:27931
the interest of Justice."
6. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the absolute
innocence canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to be found
untenable, prima facie, and the statement recorded as that of the Ayyanar
(the defacto complainant), would depict the involvement of both the
accused in this crime. It is also pointed out that there were constant calls
in between the 1st and 2nd accused, particularly, during the period from
19.08.2025 to 15.10.2025. The entire call details collected by the
Investigating Officer specifically show the constant calls between the 1 st
and 2nd accused, and the same is available in the prosecution records.
7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
lorry owners of Tamil Nadu (this crime was registered as per the statement
recorded as that of the driver of TN-31/CH-2666) used to threaten the
officers in the Department for regular checking of their vehicles and imposition
of fine and as a counterblast thereof this case was foisted. On perusal of the
statement recorded as that of the Ayyanar (the defacto complainant and the
driver of the lorry), which led to registration of the crime, the statement is that
while he was returning back by driving the lorry bearing Reg.No.
TN-31/CH-2666, the lorry owned by Senthil Kumar, after unloading
2026:KER:27931
rocks (he used to carry rocks from Kaliyikkavila to Vizhinjam
through Karode by-pass) at 02.00 hours on 14.10.2025, after unloading the
rocks in Vizhinjam when he reached a place after Kanjiramkulam
Baricode, an officer of the Motor Vehicles Department restrained him and
he found a person present along with the officer in civil dress. His version
was that, the officer informed him that Rs.1 lakh was outstanding as fine in
respect of the lorry and if Rs.20,000/- would be paid, the fine would be
avoided and by saying so the key of the lorry was taken away. According
to him, he had given Rs.10,000/- to the officer, but the officer was not
satisfied and demanded Rs.10,000/- more. Soon he had informed the same to
the owner of the lorry. Thereafter, the person who was present along with the
officer in civil dress had given the QR code in his mobile phone and
forwarded the same to his owner's phone bearing number `6381171181'.
In response to the same, the owner of the lorry paid Rs.2,000/- and
Rs.3,000/-. Again they demanded more and accordingly he had remitted
Rs.2,000/- to the QR code of the person who was present in civil dress
along with the officer from his phone bearing number `6369021880' and
thereafter the key of the lorry was entrusted back and he had gone to
2026:KER:27931
Kaliyikkavila. His evidence is that while he was returning, the time was
03.15 hours and he had remitted the money to Ratheesh J Ratheesh J with
mobile number `+91.....4489', who has an account with HDFC Bank.
According to him, thus Rs.17,000/- was collected jointly by accused Nos.1
and 2 and he also disclosed about the collection of money by the accused
persons in similar way from other persons.
8. This is the base on which the prosecution alleges
commission of offences punishable under Section 308(2) r/w Section 3(5)
of the BNS as well as Section 7 of the PC Act (amendment), 2018, by
accused Nos.1 and 2. Going by the statement given by the defacto
complainant, along with the statement recorded as that of some other
witnesses, it could be gathered that the 1 st and 2nd accused, after sharing
common intention, had obtained Rs.17,000/- from the defacto complainant
pursuant to the demand made for Rs.20,000/- and the owner of the lorry on
threat by stating that there was fine of Rs.1 lakh remaining as far as lorry
No.TN-31 CH-2666 is concerned. Merely Annexures 5 and 6 complaints
were lodged, regarding threat from the owners of the Tamil Nadu, that has
no bearing on the present case wherein the demand and acceptance of
2026:KER:27931
bribe by the 1st and 2nd accused at the helm of the 1st accused could be seen,
prima facie, not only by the vernacular version of the defacto complainant
but by the digital evidence in the form of transfer of money by the defacto
complainant and the owner of his vehicle from their mobile numbers to the
mobile number of the 2nd accused through online mode. It is discernible
from the call details so far collected that, in between 19.08.2025 to
15.10.2025, the 1st and 2nd accused were on constant calls. If the 1 st
accused is absolutely innocent and he has no connection with the 2 nd
accused, there is no necessity for the 1st accused to maintain telephone
calls with the 2nd accused, who admittedly was removed from service.
Most importantly, the version of the defacto complainant would show the
presence of the 1st accused and demand of money by him along with the 2nd
accused and payment of Rs.17,000/- in the account of the 2 nd accused as
part of the said demand. Thus, prima facie, the prosecution case is made
out and in such a case, arrest, custodial interrogation, the collection of
voice sample of the petitioner, etc. are absolutely necessary to accomplish
a meaningful investigation and eventful prosecution. In such a case, grant
of anticipatory bail would not only impede the investigation, but the same
2026:KER:27931
would totally destroy the investigation as against the petitioner. In view of
the matter, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, this bail application is dismissed with direction to
the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith, or
else, the Investigating Officer is directed to proceed with the investigation
including arrest of the petitioner as per law, without fail.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
rtr/
2026:KER:27931
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 1237 OF 2026
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure-1 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 16-
10-2025 REPORTED IN DESHABHIMANI NEWSPAPER.
Annexure-2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1179 OF 2025
OF KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION DATED 15-10-
2025.
Annexure-3 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.1034 OF 2025
DATED 15-10-2025 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION
UNDER SECTION 308(2) R/W 3(5) OF BNS.
Annexure-4 TRUE COPY OF THE B.A.NO.243 OF 2026. BEFORE
THE SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED
17-02-2026.
Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 23-11-2025.
Annexure 6 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 24-11-
2025 FORWARDED SUPERIOR OFFICER SHO, FORT
STATION.
