Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Nithin Prakash vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

B.A.No.666 of 2026


                                   1
                                                   2026:KER:12119

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 21ST MAGHA, 1947

                     BAIL APPL. NO. 666 OF 2026

    CRIME NO.1352/2024 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION,

                                KOTTAYAM

 IN SC NO.928 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT &

SESSIONS     COURT     -   V,     KOTTAYAM   /    III   ADDITIONAL

MACT/ADDL.RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY - V, KOTTAYAM.

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:

           NITHIN PRAKASH
           AGED 29 YEARS
           SREENAVAMI VEEDU, AYMANAM P.O.,
           PANDAVAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686017


           BY ADV SHRI.AJAI BABU


RESPONDENT(S):

           STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY, PIN - 682031


           SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP


      THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.666 of 2026


                                  2
                                                  2026:KER:12119


                               ORDER

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 accused No.2 in Crime No.1352/2025 of Kottayam West Police Station, Kottayam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 110, 111(1) (i) & (ii), 351(3), 118(1) and 296(b), read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 23.08.2024, while the defacto complainant, a Judicial Magistrate, was proceeding towards the H & C area and had parked her officially designated vehicle in front of the ICICI Bank ATM, accused No. 3 allegedly entered the scene and used foul language against her. Accused No. 1 allegedly got down from his car holding a bottle containing petrol and threatened to kill and intimidated the defacto complainant, following which the applicant has used foul language against her and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri. Ajai Babu, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. K.A. Noushad, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary. B.A.No.666 of 2026 3

2026:KER:12119

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 Senior 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 24.08.2024. 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 where a judicial Magistrate, who was driving a vehicle bearing her designation board was abused by total strangers on the road and with a bottle of petrol in their hands, threatened to kill her. The person who tried to intervene and subdue the accused also was assaulted. The Magistrate is the defacto complainant, and she narrated in detail, the circumstances leading to the assault. Though the over act attributed to the applicant is very minimal, the totality of the circumstances show that the applicant along with the remaining accused assaulted a judicial officer without any reason or enmity. It is reported that the applicant is a habitual B.A.No.666 of 2026 4 2026:KER:12119 offender. He has criminal antecedents. He is involved in 11 other cases. Already this Court found that the custodial trial is necessary. I see no change of circumstances. Hence, I am of the view that the applicant cannot be released on bail at this stage. The bail application, accordingly, is dismissed.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Jms B.A.No.666 of 2026 5 2026:KER:12119 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 666 OF 2026 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 24.08.2024 IN CRIME NO. 1352/2024 ON THE FILE OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 04.10.2024 IN CRIME NO. 1352 OF 2024 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN ON FILE AS S.C. NO. 928 OF 2025 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2025 IN B.A. NO.7605 / 2025 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA