Sajid A.N vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 2465 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sajid A.N vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

B.A.No.1320/2026

                                   1

                                                      2026:KER:28273

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

 TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1948

                     BAIL APPL. NO. 1320 OF 2026

  CRIME NO.1139/2025 OF Thalassery Police Station, Kannur

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS. 2 & 3:

    1      SAJID A.N, AGED 40 YEARS
           SAJEEB MANZIL, KONCHIRA P.O, VEMBAYAM,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695615

    2      THOMAS SAJIT, AGED 56 YEARS
           NO. 32, KUPPUSWAMI STREET, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
           CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 600082

           BY ADVS. SRI.SALIM V.S.
           SHRI.K.MUHAMMED THOYYIB
           SMT.A.M.FOUSI, SHRI.HUSSAM K.S.


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

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

*ADDL R2 PRADEEP KUMAR. K.K, S/O. NANU. K.K,MURIKOLI
         HOUSE, CHONADAM, ERANHOLI.P.O, THALASSERY TALUK,
         KANNUR DISTRICT

           *-IMPLEADED AS R2 VIDE ORDER DTD 25-3-26 IN CRL
           MA NO.1/26

           BY ADVS. SRI.D.ARUN BOSE
           SRI.K.VISWAN, SMT.ANJANA P.
           SMT. SREEJA V. SR. PP


      THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.03.2026,    THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.1320/2026

                                         2

                                                             2026:KER:28273



                                   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. 2 and 3 in

Crime No.1139/2025 of Thalassery Police Station, Kannur

District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections

316(5) and 318(4) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023.

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

applicants along with the remaining accused, induced the

defacto complainant by falsely promising to arrange a mammoth

loan of ₹70 crores for the purchase of an estate. It is further

alleged that under this pretext, they collected a sum of

₹1,42,30,000/- as processing fee between 15.5.2025 and

23.6.2025, thereafter, they neither arranged the loan nor

returned the processing fee and thereby committed the

offences.

4. I have heard Sri. V.S. Salim, the learned

counsel for the applicants, Sri.D. Arun Bose, the learned counsel

for the defacto complainant and Smt. Sreeja V., the learned

2026:KER:28273

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 present case. The counsel further submitted

that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with

the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to bail. The learned

Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the

alleged incident occurred as part of the applicants' intentional

criminal acts, and if they are 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 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 applicants is very serious in

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

their part. Specific over acts have been attributed against both

the applicants in the FI statement.

7. According to the applicants, the defacto

complainant had availed loan of ₹1,50,00,000/- from the

accused No.4 executing promissory note. They further

2026:KER:28273

contended that the defacto complainant availed another interest

free loan of ₹29,50,000/-. But he failed to repay the same.

Then on repeated demand, the defacto complainant agreed to

repay the loan on condition of granting another loan of

₹1,50,00,000/-. Accordingly, the accused No.4 gave another

loan of ₹1,50,00,000/- to the defacto complainant and he repaid

₹1,42,30,000/- towards the first loan. It is their case that the

said amount has been said to be collected by the applicants

from the defacto complainant as processing fee. It is further

contended that the cheques issued by the defacto complainant

were dishonoured by the bank and the accused No.4 has

approached the civil court and instituted a suit and in order to

escape from the said liability, the defacto complainant got the

above crime registered. The definite case of the defacto

complainant is that the accused have managed to obtain several

documents signed by him which includes the promissory note

and by misusing the same, the civil suit has been filed. The

investigation reveals that, from the account of the defacto

complainant, a sum of ₹14,50,000/- was transferred to the

account of the accused No.3/applicant No.2 and a sum of

₹2,00,000/- was transferred to the account of his wife.

Similarly, amount was transferred to the account of the accused

2026:KER:28273

No.2/applicant No.1 as well.

The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial

interrogation of the applicants is necessary for the investigation.

As rightly argued by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, the

possibility of the applicants influencing the witnesses and

interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if they are

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

under Section 482 of BNSS could be invoked. The bail

application is, accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp

2026:KER:28273

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 1320 OF 2026

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 13.11.2025 IN CRIME NO. 1139/2025 OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT Annexure 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 13.11.2025 WAS FILED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY Annexure 3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON 07.06.2024 EVIDENCING THE HANDING OVER OF CASH TO THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Annexure 4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLED CHEQUE NO. 774848 OF SBI, CHOKLI BRANCH, KANNUR Annexure 5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLED PROMISSORY NOTE ISSUED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Annexure 6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED PROMISSORY NOTE NO. 62/2025 DATED 20.06.2025 OF SRO ARAKKONAM, CHENNAI Annexure 7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 17.11.2025 IN O.S NO. 5705/2025 OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL COURT, CHENNAI Annexure 8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CASE PROCEEDINGS IN O.S NO. 5705/2025 OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL COURT, CHENNAI DOWNLOADED FROM THE E-COURTS WEBSITE Annexure 9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 12.12.2025 ISSUED TO THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Annexure 10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2026 IN BA.NO.154/2026 OF THE HONOURABLE SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

Annexure R2- A The true copy of the hotel bill proving the stay of the Accused at Mattanur 'Withinn' Hotel Annexure R2- B The statement of Accounts of various transaction showing deposit of money to the Account of the Accused

2026:KER:28273

Annexure R2 - C The true copy of the Enforcement notice sent to the 3rd Accused