[ad_1]
Kerala High Court
Xxxxxx vs State Of Kerala on 11 June, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 1
2025:KER:40864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6291 OF 2025
CRIME NO.182/2025 OF Thamarassery Police Station, Kozhikode
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2025 IN Bail Appl. NO.5636 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS/CCL NO.1, 3 TO 6:
1 xxx
2 xxx
3 xxx
4 xxx
*5 xxx
(*ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09/05/2025 IN
CRL.MA.2/2025 IN BA NO.6291/2025)
BY ADV SRI.K.M.FIROZ
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
3 MUHAMMED IQUBAL K.,
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADER P.K.,
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 2
2025:KER:40864
RESIDING AT PALORAKKUNNUMMAL,
THAMARASSERY P.O., CHUNGAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673573
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.K.SURESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN
SRI.K.P.MUHAMMAD ARIF
SHRI.ABDUL JALEEL.U.K
SHRI.CHACKOCHEN VITHAYATHIL
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.NO.6302/2025, THE COURT ON
11.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 3
2025:KER:40864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6302 OF 2025
CRIME NO.182/2025 OF Thamarassery Police Station, Kozhikode
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2025 IN Bail Appl. NO.5648 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/CCL NO.2:
xxx
BY ADV SRI.JACOB E SIMON
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
3 MUHAMMED IQUBAL.K.
S/O. ABDUL KHADER P.K., AGED 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PALORAKKUNNUMMAL,
THAMARASSERY P.O., CHUNGAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673573
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.K.SURESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN
SRI.K.P.MUHAMMAD ARIF
SHRI.ABDUL JALEEL.U.K
SHRI.CHACKOCHEN VITHAYATHIL
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 4
2025:KER:40864
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.No.6291/2025, THE COURT ON
11.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 5
2025:KER:40864
"C.R."
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302 of 2025
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2025
ORDER
These two bail applications are filed by children in conflict with law
having been arrayed in Crime No.182 of 2025 of Thamarassery Police Station.
They seek their release on bail under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘the JJ Act‘).
2. A brawl between a few students in the evening of 27.02.2025, turned
out to be fatal to a young boy of fifteen years. Petitioners along with others
allegedly assaulted a minor with a ‘nunchaku’ ( a weapon consisting of two
sticks connected with a short chord), inflicting grievous injuries on his head,
and later, the injured succumbed to his injuries. A crime was initially registered
for the offences under sections 126(2), 189(2), 191(2), 109 and 190 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’), and after the death of the
minor boy, the offence under section 103 of the BNS was also incorporated.
3. Petitioners were apprehended and produced before the Juvenile
Justice Board (for short the ‘JJB’) on 01.03.2025, which rejected their bail
applications, and sent them to the Observation Home, Kozhikode. Petitioners
thereafter approached the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, but without any success,
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 6
2025:KER:40864
as their applications were dismissed. Afterwards, they approached this Court
through separate bail applications, which were also dismissed by a common
order dated 25.04.2025. Soon thereafter, petitioners filed these bail
applications pointing out change in circumstances and seeking their release on
bail.
4. Sri. K.M. Firoz, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that
the children in conflict with law have been in custody from 01.03.2025 and
some of them, from 04.03.2025 onwards. According to the learned counsel,
almost 90 days are over and petitioners continue to remain in the Observation
Home, which is contrary to the scheme of the statute. The learned counsel
asserted that the scope of section 12 of the JJ Act have not been properly
comprehended by the courts since denial of bail to a juvenile must be an
exception. The learned counsel referred to various decisions in support of his
contentions. It was also submitted that considering the scheme of the JJ Act,
petitioners ought to be released on bail.
5. Sri. C.K Suresh, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the
children in conflict with law (for short ‘CCL’) had committed a brutal and pre-
planned murder of another young student and hence releasing them on bail
would send a wrong message to the society. It was also submitted that
granting them bail may even result in harm to the CCL themselves, as the
public are agitated by the crime and their release will expose them to
psychological, moral and physical danger and also defeat the ends of justice.
The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the materials collected
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 7
2025:KER:40864
during investigation has even revealed the support given by one of the parents
of a CCL in criminal activities and therefore the parents are not fit persons to
place the petitioners in custody and that even the petitioners will become
associated with other criminals in the society and hence they ought not to be
released on bail.
6. Sri. Kodoth Sreedharan, the learned counsel for the defacto
complainant in his impressive arguments submitted that keeping the CCL in an
Observation Home itself is a measure of reformative action and therefore bail
ought not to be granted. It was also submitted that the findings in the order of
this Court on 25.04.2024, while dismissing their earlier bail applications,
restricts the consideration of another application soon thereafter. It was
submitted, by referring to the provisions of section 12 of the JJ Act, that the
power under the said provision has to be exercised by the JJB in exercise of its
original jurisdiction and not by this Court, since petitioners’ applications before
the Sessions Court and this Court have already been dismissed once. It was
further pointed out that section 12 read with the provisions of section 1(4) of
the JJ Act restricts the power of this Court to consider these applications again
in its original jurisdiction under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’). The learned counsel referred to the
decision in State of Gujarat v. Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh and Others
[(2003) 8 SCC 50] apart from the decision in Tejram Nagrachi (Juvenile) v.
State of Chattisgarh [2019 CriLJ 4017].
7. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the following issues arise
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 8
2025:KER:40864
for consideration; (i). Can the High Court in its original jurisdiction consider
these bail applications under section 12 of the JJ Act? (ii). Can the retention of
a child in conflict with law in an Observation Home be treated as a reformative
measure and retain the CCL in such Home for longer periods? and (iii). Are the
petitioners entitled to be released on bail?
8. Before addressing the above issues, it is necessary to have a brief
insight into the salient features of the JJ Act to the extent it is relevant to the
case on hand. Petitioners were apprehended, alleging the commission of
murder of another boy, who was only 15 years in age. Petitioners are all
students of the same age as the deceased. Legally, petitioners cannot be tried
as adults, despite the heinous nature of their crime.
9. The JJ Act deals with children who are in conflict with law or those
who are in need of care and protection. Distinct from the conservative
concepts of retribution and repression as being the objectives of criminal
justice, the JJ Act seeks to rehabilitate and reform the juvenile in conflict with
law by providing a child friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of
matters related to a juvenile. Despite laying down a child friendly approach in
all the procedures under the JJ Act with the paramount consideration of best
interest of the child as a priority, the statute focuses on providing social
reintegration of a child in conflict with law leading towards reformation. While
section 2(12) of the Act defines a ‘child’ as a person who has not completed
the age of 18, a ‘child in conflict with law’ is defined in section 2(13), as a child
who is alleged or found to have committed an offence and who has not
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 9
2025:KER:40864
completed eighteen years of age on the date of commission of offence. Of
course, in respect of children above the age of 16, who have committed a
heinous offence, the statute enables such juveniles to be treated as adults.
10. The Juvenile Justice Boards are responsible primarily for handling
children in conflict with law. When a child in conflict with law is brought before
the JJB, section 12 of the JJ Act stipulates as a mandate, that the child shall be
released on bail. Releasing the child in conflict with law on bail is the
underlying feature of the provision and denial, an exception. Section 3 of the JJ
Act lays down the fundamental principles that should be borne in mind by all
agencies while implementing the provisions of the JJ Act. The best interest of a
juvenile shall, as per section 3(iv) of the JJ Act, be the primary consideration,
unlike the general law. Further, concepts like family as having the primary
responsibility of care and protection of the child, adoption of positive measures
to provide an inclusive and enabling environment to reduce vulnerabilities of
children, the right to be reunited with his family at the earliest and to be
restored to the same socio-economic and cultural status as the child was in,
before coming under the purview of the JJ Act, placing a child in institutional
care to be the last resort, are various guiding factors while implementing the JJ
Act. Thus the thread that runs through the entire gamut of the JJ Act is
rehabilitation of the child to enable him to reintegrate into the society and
ultimately pave the way for reformation of the child in conflict with law. The
above salient aspects of the JJ Act are required to be borne in mind while
dealing with the issues arising in this case.
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 10
2025:KER:40864
Issue No. (i). Can the High Court in its original jurisdiction consider these bail
applications under section 12 of the JJ Act?
11. To answer the question mentioned above, it is appropriate to extract
Section 12(1) of the JJ Act, which reads as follows:
“12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in
conflict with law.–(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and
is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is
apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a
Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the
time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed
under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit
person:
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears
reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that
person into association with any known criminal or expose the said
person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the persons release
would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons
for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.”
12. A reading of the above extracted provision will reveal that, in matters
of bail, by virtue of the non obstante clause, a child, alleged to be in conflict
with law has to be dealt with under section 12 of the Act. Apart from the non
obstante clause in the said provision, section 5 of BNSS also makes it evident
that when a child in conflict with law is apprehended or detained by the police,
the question of grant of bail has to be dealt with by the said provision and
none else. Of course, the situation is different when the CCL seeks for an
anticipatory bail as held in X v. State of Kerala in (2018 (3) KHC 223).
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 11
2025:KER:40864
13. Notwithstanding the non applicability of section 483 of BNSS, the
question is whether the High Court can consider bail applications in its original
jurisdiction in respect of juveniles. In this context, reference to section 8 of the
JJ Act is necessary.
“8. Powers, functions and responsibilities of the Board.–(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being
in force but save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Board
constituted for any district shall have the power to deal exclusively with
all the proceedings under this Act, relating to children in conflict with
law, in the area of jurisdiction of such Board.
(2) The powers conferred on the Board by or under this Act may also be
exercised by the High Court and the Children’s Court, when the
proceedings come before them under section 19 or in appeal, revision or
otherwise.
(3)xxx xxx xxx”
14. As per the above provision, the power conferred on the JJB can be
exercised by the High Court if the matter comes before it in appeal, revision or
otherwise. It needs no deliberation that when it is a matter that comes before
the High Court in appeal or revision, the powers of the High Court are co-
extensive with that of the JJB. However, the dispute arises whether de hors an
appeal or revision, can the High Court exercise the powers of JJB.
15. Under the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as the
present BNSS, apart from appeal and revision, the only other method in which
a criminal matter can come before the High Court is in its original jurisdiction.
Normally when a general word is preceded by a specific word, the general word
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 12
2025:KER:40864
must be interpreted in a restricted sense and in the same manner as the
specific word as per the rule of ejusdem generis. However, when such a
restricted interpretation is adopted, if the meaning becomes obscure and leads
to an ambiguity not contemplated by the statute, such an interpretation need
not be adopted. The principle of ejusdem generis must be applied only when
the context of the whole scheme of legislation requires it and if the scheme
does not require such a restricted meaning to be attached to the words of
general import, it is the duty of the court to give the words the plain and
ordinary meaning. Reference to the decision in Smt. Lila Vati Bai v. State of
Bombay [AIR 1957 SC 521] is relevant for the said proposition.
16. Apart from the above, the legislation under consideration is a
beneficial legislation. In the context of the JJ Act, an interpretation has to be
adopted that advances the cause of the subject for whose benefit the
legislation was made and not to frustrate the intent of the legislature. Thus,
when two views are possible, in the matter of a beneficial legislation, an
expansive interpretation must be adopted to enable a wider interpretation to
favour the subject of the legislation.
17. The JJ Act confers power upon the High Court to deal with a matter
in the same manner as a JJB would, while the High Court exercises the powers
in appeal and revision. When the same powers of the JJB can be exercised by
the High Court in appeal and revision, there is no reason to restrict the scope
of exercise of power by the High Court in its original jurisdiction as well. A
contrary interpretation would go against the purpose of the enactment. Of
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 13
2025:KER:40864
course, when the High Court considers a matter in its original jurisdiction, it is
always open to the court to decide whether to relegate the juvenile to
approach the JJB or not. However, that is a matter of discretion. This Court is
fortified in the above proposition by the decisions of the Delhi High Court in
CCL ‘A’ v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2021 CriLJ 1251] and that of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Child in Conflict with Law v. State of M.P. and
Another [2022 CriLJ 2358]. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that
the scheme of the JJ Act enables the High Court to consider an application for
bail in its original jurisdiction under section 12 of the JJ Act read with section
8(2) of the JJ Act.
Issue No. (ii). Can the retention of a child in conflict with law in an Observation
Home be treated as a reformative measure and retain the CCL in such Home
for longer periods?
18. An Observation Home is defined in section 2(40) of the JJ Act to mean
an observation home established and maintained in every district or group of
districts by a State Government, either by itself, or through a voluntary or
non-governmental organisation, and is registered as such, for the purposes
specified in sub-section (1) of section 47. As per the said provision, the
Government is obliged to maintain either by itself or through other
organisations, Observation Homes for temporary reception, care and
rehabilitation of any child alleged to be in conflict with law, during the
pendency of any inquiry under this Act. As the provision itself specifies, an
Observation Home is for the temporary reception, care and rehabilitation of a
child in conflict with law during the pendency of an inquiry under the Act.
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 14
2025:KER:40864
Though retention of a child in conflict with law in an Observation Home is, to
an extent, a measure of rehabilitation, continuing a child for long periods in
such home cannot be said to be in the best interests of a child, unless there
are other compelling reasons.
19. Further, as per section 3 of the JJ Act, while administering the
statute, every child is given a right to be reunited with his family at the earliest
and restored to the same socio economic and cultural status that he was in,
before coming under the purview of the Act, unless it is not in his best interest.
Even section 12 of the JJ Act endorses the said principle of releasing the CCL
on bail rather than refusing it. Therefore, long periods of retention in
Observation Home without being reunited with his family cannot be said to be
in the best interest of the child. In this context it needs to be mentioned that
the child’s ability to develop to his full potential is a consideration, while
implementing the provisions of the Act. Hence, while interpreting the
provisions of the Act, this Court cannot be oblivious of its scheme and the
guiding principles laid down in section 3 of the JJ Act. Viewed in the above
perspective, the continued retention of juveniles in Observation Home is
against the purport of the Act itself.
Issue No.(iii). Are the petitioners entitled to be released on bail?
20. Grant of bail to a juvenile is the norm under section 12 of the JJ Act
and its refusal, an exception. The mandate of the statute is not to detain a
juvenile but to release him. Bail ought to be denied to a juvenile only if the
exceptions stipulated in the proviso to section 12(1) of JJ Act are satisfied.
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 15
2025:KER:40864
21. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the observations in Jitendra
Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2013) 11 SCC 193]. While
dealing with bail under the erstwhile Juvenile Justice Act, which is almost in
pari materia with the present statute, it was observed by the Supreme Court
that, “the provision dealing with bail (Section 12 of the Act) places a burden
for denying bail on the prosecution. Ordinarily, a juvenile in conflict with law
shall be released on bail, but he may not be so released if there appear
reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into
association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice”.
Similarly, in the decision in Juvenile in Conflict with Law V v. State of
Rajasthan and Another [2024 SCC Online SC 5297] it has been observed
that from the phraseology used in sub section (1) of section 12 of the JJ Act, a
juvenile in conflict with law has to be necessarily released on bail with or
without sureties or be placed under supervision of a probation officer or under
the care of any fit person unless the proviso is applicable.
22. The proviso to section 12(1) of the JJ Act specifies when bail can be
denied to a juvenile. Those factors are (i) if the juvenile is released on bail he
may come into association with any known criminal, or (ii) releasing the
juvenile will expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or (iii) the
release would defeat the ends of justice. As observed earlier, the burden to
prove the existence of the above factors for denying bail to a CCL, as per the
proviso to section 12(1) of JJ Act is entirely on the prosecution.
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 16
2025:KER:40864
23. In the instant case, the JJB, the Sessions Court as well as this Court
had dismissed the bail applications earlier, stating that severe agitations are
going on and the chances of CCL being attacked by the public exists, which
exposes them to psychological, physical and moral danger. The JJB had, after
referring to every ground specified in the proviso to section 12(1) of the JJ Act,
came to the conclusion that the offence was committed when the children were
in the custody and care of the parents and therefore the parents are not fit
persons to be placed with their custody and also that there are possibilities of
the CCL being associated with other criminals in the society. The learned
Sessions Judge, after noticing the premeditation to commit the crime, entered
a finding that they are not entitled to be released on bail since it would amount
to a failure of justice especially as it was at the initial stage of investigation.
Subsequently, a learned single Judge of this Court also dismissed the bail
applications after observing that their release would be a threat to their own
safety and expose them to physical as well as psychological danger.
24. These applications have been filed subsequent to the above
dismissal, pointing out change in circumstances. Since this is not an appeal,
the reasons that weighed with the JJB and the Sessions Court are not matters
open for review or reconsideration. However, those reasons cannot be ignored
by this Court either, when these applications are being considered in exercise
of the original jurisdiction. One of the main reasons for denying bail to the
petitioners is an anonymous letter received by the Principal of the School
where the CCL were studying, stating that if they are permitted to write the
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 17
2025:KER:40864
Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination they will be murdered. The
examination was held in March. Petitioners wrote the said examination and
have even cleared it. On an application filed by the petitioners, this Court has
already permitted some of the petitioners to attend the interview for admission
to the higher secondary course as well. The examination was written by the
CCL around three months back and the results have also been published. Thus,
the anonymous letter, relied upon as the basis for apprehending threat or
danger to the CCL, can no longer be reckoned as a reason to apprehend
danger to them.
25. When the word ‘grounds’ is qualified by the word ‘reasonable’, as
seen in the proviso to section 12(1) of the JJ Act, it contemplates something
more than just a reason. The ground must be real and of significance. The
belief must be based on material which exists in reality. While interpreting the
term in section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985, the Supreme Court had, in State of Kerala and Others v. Rajesh
and Others (2020) 12 SCC 122, explained the expression ‘reasonable
grounds’ as meaning something more than prima facie grounds. The said
interpretation can be a useful guide in the present case as well, while
considering the proviso to section 12(1) of JJ Act.
26. An anonymous letter cannot, even after three months, be regarded
as an existence of facts and circumstances that are sufficient to justify a
satisfaction that there is danger or threat to the life of the CCL. Further, such
anonymous letters cannot be the basis for concluding that the CCL continues to
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 18
2025:KER:40864
be in danger especially since, despite registering a crime and conducting
investigation, the police have not been able to identify the person behind such
a letter. In the absence of any material to show that the anonymous letter can
be relied upon to have a reasonable ground to believe that the CCL will be in
danger continuously, this Court is of the view that the said ground projected is
not a reason to deny them bail.
27. It is apposite to mention that the seriousness of the offence or the
manner in which the offence was committed, are not considerations under the
proviso to section 12(1) of the JJ Act, while considering the question of release
of a juvenile on bail. If such considerations are taken into reckoning, the whole
focus of the statute will shift. The legislative intent, as evident from section 12
of the JJ Act, is to primarily release the juvenile on bail. When the liberty of a
juvenile is sought to be curtailed by employing the exception, such exclusions
must be construed strictly. If the nature of offence and the manner of its
commission are to be considered, the statute should have been worded in such
a manner that, in heinous offences, bail ought not to be granted. Such a
legislative intent cannot be inferred by reading of the words used in the
statute. Therefore the nature of offences committed by the CCL and the
manner in which they were committed are not entirely relevant considerations,
especially when the CCL are less than 16 years in age.
28. The terminology ‘association with any known criminal’ must be
construed strictly. In the instant case, there is nothing to indicate that the CCL
has any nexus or will, by any possibility, be associated with a known criminal.
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 19
2025:KER:40864
Vague allegations cannot be the basis for ignoring the statutory mandate.
There is also nothing to indicate that ends of justice will be defeated if the
petitioners are released on bail. No material has been produced by the
prosecution to enable this Court to come to such a conclusion.
29. Petitioners have been placed in the Observation Home from
01-03-2025 and some of them from 04-03-2025. Some of the petitioners
have been in the Observation Home for more than 101 days and some others
for more than 98 days. Since this Court is of the view that further retention of
the petitioners do not augur well in the light of the statutory intendment,
petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.
In the result, these applications are allowed on the following conditions:-
(a) Petitioners shall be released on bail on each of their parents
executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with
two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
Juvenile Justice Board having jurisdiction.
(b) The parents of the petitioners shall file an affidavit that the
petitioners will co-operate with all proceedings and will be produced
as and when necessary and to keep them under observation and will
also not allow them to be associated with any criminal or any
undesirable persons.
(c) The affidavit shall also undertake that the petitioners and their
parents or relatives shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the
witnesses; nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence.
(d) The affidavit shall also undertake that petitioners shall not
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 202025:KER:40864
commit any similar offences while they are on bail.
(e) The affidavit shall also undertake that petitioners shall not leave
the country without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification
or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be
empowered to consider such applications if any, and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this
Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 21
2025:KER:40864
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6291/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1-3-2025 IN
CMP NO. 31 OF 2025 IN CRIME NO 182 OF 2025 OF
THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION PASSED BY THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KOZHIKODE
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4-3-2025 IN
CMP NO. 33 OF 2025 IN CRIME NO 182 OF 2025 OF
THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION PASSED BY THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KOZHIKODE
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED
11.4.2025 IN CMC NO. 429 OF 2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT,
KOZHIKODE DIVISION
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON BAIL ORDER PASSED
IN BA NOS. 5636/2025, 5648/2025, 5652/2025,
5657/2025
Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF FIR IN
CRIME NO. 198 OF 2025 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE
STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ALONG WITH LETTER
DATED 6.3.2025 OF HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT
VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
THAMARASSERY
Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
FIR IN CRIME NO. 391 OF 2025 OF CHEVAYOOR
POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
Annexure A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA STATE
COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS
DATED 15/05/2025
Annexure A8 A TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO.
18809 OF 2025 DATED 20.5.2025
Annexure A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT SLIP OF
APPLICANT NO 1 DATED NIL
Annexure A9(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT SLIP OF
PETITIONER NO 2 DATED NIL
Annexure A9(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT SLIP OF
PETITIONER NO 3 DATED NIL
Annexure A9(c) A TRUE COPY OF ALLOTMENT SLIP OF PETITIONER
NO 4 DATED NIL
Annexure A9(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT SLIP OF
PETITIONER NO 5 DATED NIL
B.A. Nos.6291 & 6302/2025 22
2025:KER:40864
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6302/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1-3-2025 IN
CMP NO. 31 OF 2025 IN CRIME NO 182 OF 2025 OF
THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION PASSED BY THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KOZHIKODE
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED
11.4.2025 IN CMC NO. 429 OF 2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT,
KOZHIKODE DIVISION
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON BAIL ORDER PASSED
IN BA NOS. 5636/2025, 5648/2025, 5652/2025,
5657/2025
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF FIR IN
CRIME NO. 198 OF 2025 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE
STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ALONG WITH LETTER
DATED 6.3.2025 OF HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT
VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
THAMARASSERY
Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
FIR IN CRIME NO. 391 OF 2025 OF CHEVAYOOR
POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
RESPONDENT'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE VIDEO RECORDING OF THE
WHATSAPP GROUP CHATS
Annexure R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE GROUP PHOTO OF THE CCL'S
[ad_2]
Source link