The Kerala High Court partly allowed a pre-arrest bail application filed by several accused in a rioting and assault case arising from an incident during a temple festival in Palakkad district, refusing anticipatory bail to the first accused while extending protection from arrest to the remaining applicants after noting the difference in the specific roles attributed to them in the prosecution records.
- Case: Prajith vs State of Kerala
- Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
- Bench: Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath
- Date of Judgment: 27 February 2026
- Case Number: Bail Application No. 973 of 2026
- Citation: 2026:KER:17720
The petition before the High Court was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.1479/2025 registered at Vadakkencherry Police Station in Palakkad district.
The applicants were accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 in the case.
The offences alleged against them were punishable under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The court recorded at the outset:
“This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS), seeking pre-arrest bail.”
The order further noted the criminal provisions involved in the prosecution:
“The applicants are the accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 in Crime No.1479/2025 of Vadakkencherry Police Station, Palakkad District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 324(4) and 324(5) read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.”
The prosecution’s case, as summarised by the High Court from the First Information Statement, described a violent confrontation that allegedly took place after the complainant and his family warned the first accused regarding his relationship with a woman related to the complainant’s family.
The court recorded the background of the alleged incident in detail.
The order states:
“The prosecution case, in short, is that the defacto complainant and his family members warned the accused No.1, who was in love with the defacto complainant’s aunt’s granddaughter.”
According to the prosecution, this warning triggered hostility which culminated in a group assault. The court reproduced the prosecution narrative regarding how the incident unfolded.
“Infuriated by this, on 27.12.2025 at 9:45 p.m. at Nattukal, Manjapra, accused Nos.1 to 7, along with 25 other identifiable persons, in prosecution of their common object to commit rioting, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the knowledge that they were the members of such assembly.”
The alleged assault occurred when the complainant and his relatives were returning home after attending the Manjapra Arattu festival. The High Court quoted the prosecution’s account of the incident describing the physical assault and restraint of the complainant.
“While the defacto complainant and his relatives were returning home after Manjapra Arattu festival, the accused No.2 caught hold of the defacto complainant’s shirt collar and wrongly restrained him, while accused No.1 voluntarily caused hurt to him by hitting him with a stone tied with cloth.”
The court further noted the allegation that the complainant was assaulted even after he fell to the ground.
“When the defacto complainant fell down, accused No.1 kicked him.”
Another witness who attempted to intervene also allegedly suffered serious injuries. The court recorded the following allegation in the case diary and prosecution narrative:
“When CW2 attempted to prevent the same, accused No.1 hit the right ear of CW2 with the cloth- tied stone, resulting in fracture of his right eardrum.”
The order further recorded the role attributed to the other accused persons who were part of the alleged unlawful assembly.
“Accused Nos.3 to 6 fisted and kicked the defacto complainant.”
The violence, according to the prosecution, escalated when the complainant’s relatives attempted to intervene.
“When the brother and wife of the defacto complainant intervened, accused Nos.3 and 4 hit him on his back, while accused Nos.6 and 7 fisted other family members.”
The order also records a chaotic moment during the altercation when the complainant and the first accused fell into a paddy field while grappling.
“Further, when accused No.1 pulled back the defacto complainant’s shirt’s collar, both of them fell into the paddy field.”
During the incident, the complainant allegedly lost a gold chain. The court noted this as part of the prosecution’s version of events.
“The defacto complainant’s gold chain, weighing about 1.5 sovereigns, was lost in the incident.”
While considering the anticipatory bail plea, the High Court heard submissions from both sides. The applicants’ counsel argued that the accused were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the crime.
The order records:
“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.”
On the other hand, the State opposed the plea for anticipatory bail, arguing that the incident was the result of deliberate criminal acts and that granting bail at the investigation stage could interfere with the process.
The High Court recorded the prosecution’s objection in the following terms:
“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.”
After examining the First Information Statement and case diary, the High Court made a distinction between the role of the first accused and the role attributed to the remaining applicants. The judge emphasized the specific overt act alleged against the first accused in the case.
“I went through the FIS. Specific overt act has been alleged against the applicant No.1, who is the accused No.1. He has used the stone to assault the de facto complainant, who sustained fracture.”
Because of this allegation and the seriousness of the act attributed to him, the High Court concluded that the first accused could not be granted the protection of anticipatory bail at that stage of the investigation.
The order states clearly:
“Hence, he cannot be extended the benefit of pre-arrest bail.”
However, the court found that the allegations against the remaining applicants did not indicate serious overt acts requiring custodial interrogation. The judge observed that their role in the incident was comparatively limited based on the materials available in the case diary.
The court observed:
“However, no serious overt act has been alleged against the remaining applicants, who are the accused Nos.3 to 6. It appears that their custodial interrogation is not necessary.”
Based on this assessment, the High Court concluded that it was an appropriate case to grant anticipatory bail to accused Nos.3 to 6.
“For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant Nos.2 to 5/accused Nos.3 to 6.”
The court therefore partly allowed the bail application and directed that accused Nos.3 to 6 be released on bail in the event of their arrest, subject to several conditions.
The order directed:
“The applicant Nos.2 to 5/accused Nos.3 to 6 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.”
The court also directed the applicants to cooperate fully with the investigation.
“The applicant Nos.2 to 5/accused Nos.3 to 6 shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting themselves to the deemed police custody for discovery, if any, as and when demanded.”
As part of the bail conditions, the accused were directed to appear regularly before the investigating officer.
“The applicant Nos.2 to 5/accused Nos.3 to 6 shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders.”
The High Court further directed that the accused must not commit any similar offences while on bail and must not attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. They were also restrained from leaving the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial court.
Thus, while the High Court declined pre-arrest bail to the first accused due to the specific and serious allegations of assault causing fracture, it granted anticipatory bail to accused Nos.3 to 6 after finding that their custodial interrogation was not necessary at the current stage of investigation.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
