High CourtsSingle Bench

Mohammed Bilal vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 1 April 2026 · Citation: (2026) 04 KL CK 0211

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 · Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section- 201, 302, 394, 397, 449, 461
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1333 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 407 words

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

1.

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya  Nagarik  Suraksha  Sanhita,  2023  (for  short,  BNSS) seeking regular bail.

2.

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.685/2020 of Kottayam West Police Station, Kottayam District.  The  offences alleged are punishable  under  Sections 449,  302,  394,  397,  461  and  201  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code, 1860.

3.

The prosecution case, in short, is that with intention of committing theft of valuable articles from the house of the deceased persons, the applicant trespassed into the same, on 01.06.2020 by about 8.40 a.m. and attacked the owner of the house, by name Abdul Sali, by using a frame of teapoy on his head  repeatedly.  When  his wife  Sheeba  Sali  attempted  to prevent  the  crime,  she  was  also  attacked  with  frame  on  her head. The said Sheeba Sali succumbed to death then and there and Abul Sali passed away later in the hospital. In order to  ensure  death,  the  applicant  had  conducted  electric  power through  the  body of the deceased persons.  Thereafter, gold ornaments worth Rs.7,78,000/-, apart from Rs.5,000/- Samsung, OPPO mobile phones etc. were stolen by the applicant and thereby committed the offences.

4.

I have heard Sri.J.Abhilash, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.C.K.Suresh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in  the  present  case. The  counsel  further  submitted  that  no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and he  is not entitled to bail at this stage.

6.

The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 28.05.2025. A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation  against the applicant is very serious, and it  prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. This is a case  of  double  murder,  and  the  manner  in  which  the  murder was  committed  is  brutal  in  nature.  Considering  the  nature  of the crime, the gravity of the offence, the complicity of the applicant in it, and the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that the applicant cannot be released on bail at this stage. The bail application, accordingly, is dismissed.