Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen, while granting conditional bail to a municipal officer accused of demanding unlawful gratification for processing a property ownership transfer, directed that all future bail petitions filed before the Court must contain an undertaking that no other bail request is pending before any court in the district judiciary. The Court disapproved the practice of initiating parallel bail proceedings in multiple forums after noting that the accused, a Superintendent of the Kochi Corporation, had approached different courts simultaneously. In the corruption case at hand, the Court held that further custody was unnecessary and ordered release on strict terms, while also issuing procedural directions to prevent recurrence of such filing practices.

The matter arises from a vigilance investigation in which the first accused, serving as a Superintendent at the Kochi Corporation’s Edappally Zonal Office, was alleged to have misused his official position along with another official. According to the prosecution, an online application for transfer of ownership of a residential property was submitted by an applicant on 06.05.2025. The allegation is that no action was taken on the request and that both officials jointly demanded illegal gratification for processing the file.

Also Read: Supreme Court Strikes Down Tribunal Reforms Act, Directs Union Government To Establish National Tribunals Commission Within 4 Months

The prosecution states that when the applicant’s lawyer later enquired about the status of the application on 13.10.2025, each accused sought specific amounts as unlawful payment and instructed that the sum be brought to the office on a subsequent date. A vigilance trap was arranged, during which the officials allegedly demanded and received the bribe, following which they were arrested. The investigation report also notes the recovery of currency from the first accused’s residence during a search.

The petitioner challenged these allegations, contending innocence and asserting that the bribe money was not recovered from him. He also relied on the duration of his custody and expressed willingness to comply with any conditions. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the nature of the accusations and the risk of interference with witnesses.

The Court recorded that the offences alleged against the first accused were made out “prima facie” on perusal of the investigating officer’s report and other materials. The Court stated that “there are materials to show that the petitioner demanded bribe from the lawyer of Smt. Darsha to issue ownership certificate and also Rs.1,35,500/- was recovered from his house on search by the Investigating Officer.” It noted the progress of investigation and the duration of custody, recording that the petitioner had been in custody from 16.10.2025.

The Court observed: “This attitude is not permissible and the same is to be deprecated.” It stated that the subsequent bail application filed before the Special Court was pending when the present application was filed, though it was later withdrawn. The Court stated that “there is no whisper in this petition regarding filing of Crl.M.P. No.382/2025 before the Special Court and nothing stated as to filing of any other bail application before the Special Court.” It further observed that suppression of this fact “may disentitle any relief in this petition.”

The Court then recorded a direction to the Registry, noting that the present situation required a procedural safeguard: “the Registry of this Court is directed to verify all bail applications filed before this Court to ensure that there will be an undertaking in all the bail applications filed, stating that ‘no other bail application/applications filed or pending in any other Courts in the District Judiciary as on the date of filing of the bail application before this Court’.” It added that in case of doubt, the Registry “shall contact the Sessions Court or Special Court concerned” to verify pending applications, and that this direction shall be complied with “without fail.”

Despite the procedural impropriety noted, the Court recorded: “Even though the method opted by the petitioner in filing bail applications simultaneously before the Special Court and this Court may disentitle him the relief, in consideration of his custody from 16.10.2025, I am of the view that, further custody of the petitioner, for the purpose of investigation is not necessary and he can be enlarged on bail, in the interest of justice.”

The Court allowed the bail application and ordered that the petitioner be enlarged on bail. It directed that the petitioner “shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional court concerned.” The petitioner “shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence” and that he “shall co-operate with the investigation and shall be available for trial.”

The petitioner “shall not enter the limit of Cochin Corporation till the investigation is completed.” It also directed that the petitioner “shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed, apart from appearing before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays between 9 am and 10 am, for a period of three months or till the completion of investigation, whichever is earlier.”

Also Read: Inmates Of Mental Health Rehabilitation Centre Can Participate In 2025 General Elections Unless Declared Unsound By Court: Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea For Separate Voting Process

The petitioner “shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.” The petitioner “shall not involve in any other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this court, the same alone shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.”

The petitioner “shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional Court without prior permission of the Jurisdictional Court. Violation of any of the conditions imposed shall result in cancellation of bail hereby granted.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri. Harish Gopinath, Smt. Surumi Nazar
For the Respondents: Rajesh A (Special Public Prosecutor, VACB), Rekha S (Senior Public Prosecutor, VACB)

Case Title: Lalachan V.M v. State of Kerala & Another

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:87554

Case Number: Bail Application No. 13644 of 2025

Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen