Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered an order on August 18, 2025, allowing a bail application filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court held that the petitioner could be released on pre-arrest bail subject to specific conditions. The judicial directive mandated that the petitioner appear before the investigating officer, submit to interrogation, and comply with restrictions on influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The Court further ordered that failure to adhere to these conditions could empower the jurisdictional court to modify or cancel the bail order. The judgment concluded by stating that anticipatory bail was granted on discretionary grounds as the prosecution had not established the necessity of custodial interrogation.

The bail application concerned Crime No.412 of 2024 registered at the Pallikkal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner was arraigned as the second accused in the case. The offences cited in the first information report (FIR) included Sections 370, 120B, and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Clause Barring Interest on Delayed Payments Does Not Bar Pendente Lite Interest | Arbitral Tribunal Empowered Under S.31(7) Arbitration Act

According to the prosecution, the accused collectively promised employment to two children of the de facto complainant. The children were allegedly trafficked to the United Arab Emirates on a visiting visa. Once in the UAE, they were given employment in the workshop owned by the father of the third accused. Subsequently, they were provided accommodation in an apartment. Thereafter, contraband was allegedly concealed in a car associated with them, resulting in their arrest under the narcotic drugs legislation of the UAE. The complainant’s children were sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment by authorities in the foreign jurisdiction. The prosecution alleged that the accused, including the petitioner, conspired to orchestrate this sequence of events.

The petitioner’s counsel, Shri. Sreehari Indukaladharan, contended that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the matter and had no involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. The application for anticipatory bail was filed to prevent unjustified arrest and custodial detention.

The Public Prosecutor, Shri. Noushad K. A., representing the State, opposed the bail plea. He submitted that custodial interrogation was required to ascertain the extent of the petitioner’s role and to complete the investigation effectively. The prosecution also stated a financial transaction, namely a transfer of Rs.15,000/- from the petitioner to the daughter-in-law of the complainant. This transaction was cited as evidence of the petitioner’s connection to the alleged offences.

The Court recorded that in a connected matter, B.A. No. 5275 of 2025, accused numbers one and three had already been granted anticipatory bail by order dated June 23, 2025. The earlier order was noted to have concluded that the offence of trafficking of persons under Section 370 of the IPC was not prima facie attracted. In that case, the interim order was dated April 8, 2025, and the final order followed in June 2025.

The FIR annexed to the petition was considered by the Court. The FIR was registered on June 1, 2024, at the Pallikkal Police Station. The annexures filed by the petitioner included copies of the FIR, the interim bail order, and the final anticipatory bail order granted to co-accused.

The Court examined the rival submissions and referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, 2020 (5) SCC 1. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas recorded: “while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.”

Addressing the factual aspects, the Court stated: “In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to convince this Court of the necessity of custodial interrogation.” Further, it recorded: “The petitioner is alleged to have, along with other accused, promised to provide an employment for the two children of the de-facto complainant and trafficked them to ‘UAE’ on a visiting visa and provided them an employment in the workshop of the father of the 3rd accused and implicated them in a narcotic drugs crime.”

The Court also observed: “By an order dated 23.06.2025 in B.A. No. 5275 of 2025, the accused 1 and 3 have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, after noticing that the offence of trafficking of persons is not seen to be prima facie attracted.”

Referring to the petitioner’s role, the Court recorded: “A reading of the FIR does not indicate any serious allegation against the petitioner who is arrayed as the 2nd accused. The main allegations are raised against accused 1 and 3.” Regarding the conspiracy charge, the Court stated: “Though there is an allegation of conspiracy between all the accused, already accused 1 and 3 have been granted anticipatory bail and hence there is no reason to deny pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.”

The Court addressed the issue of financial transactions stated by the prosecution: “The learned public prosecutor pointed out that petitioner had sent an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the daughter-in-law of the complainant, however, that by itself do not indicate any involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime of trafficking of persons.”

Based on the cumulative consideration of the allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, the Court concluded that anticipatory bail could be granted with conditions to safeguard the investigation.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the bail application. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed: “Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions.” The Court mandated that the petitioner appear before the Investigating Officer on September 2, 2025, and submit to interrogation. The Court further ordered that if, after interrogation, the Investigating Officer intended to arrest the petitioner, she would be released on bail upon executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties of the like sum before the Investigating Officer.

Also Read: Kerala High Court | Petroleum Outlet Can Be Set Up Near Colleges | CPCB Siting Norms Apply Only to Schools and Hospitals; Licence Rejection Quashed

The judgment continued: “Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation.” Additionally, it directed: “Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall she tamper with the evidence.”

The Court also imposed a condition prohibiting repetition of similar offences: “Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while she is on bail.” The order specified that in case of violation of these conditions, or if any modification or deletion of the conditions was required, the jurisdictional court would be empowered to consider such applications and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the fact that anticipatory bail had been granted by the High Court.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Shri. Sreehari Indukaladharan, Advocate

For the Respondents: Shri. Noushad K. A., Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Aparna Nair v. State of Kerala & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:62207

Case Number: B.A. No. 8964 of 2025

Bench: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas