Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Booked For Hurling Bomb At Wrong House
The Kerala High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a man, who is booked for hurling a bomb, albeit at the wrong house. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 405]Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath dismissed the pre-arrest bail application filed by the man, who was arrayed by the Kannur Kuthuparamba police in a crime.The offences alleged were those under Section 109(1) [Attempt to murder] of the Bharatiya...
The Kerala High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a man, who is booked for hurling a bomb, albeit at the wrong house. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 405]
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath dismissed the pre-arrest bail application filed by the man, who was arrayed by the Kannur Kuthuparamba police in a crime.
The offences alleged were those under Section 109(1) [Attempt to murder] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita along with Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
The prosecution allegation was that the applicant entered into a conspiracy with other persons with the intention to kill one Afneed and family, with whom the applicant was in inimical terms with due to business dispute between them in Oman.
It is further alleged that the applicant along with the others went to the area where Afneed's father was residing in a car and a motorbike, and thereafter, hurled a steel bomb into the bedroom of a house in the early hours of the morning.
It is alleged that the bomb was hurled into the de facto complainant's house, mistaking the same to be his rival's house. The bomb hit the window glass, broke the same but the bomb remained unexploded, says the prosecution.
The applicant's counsel urged that there are no materials connecting him with the crime and he has been falsely implicated. The prosecution opposed the bail plea and submitted that the incident occurred due to the applicant's intentional criminal acts and if he is released on bail, it will impede the progress of the investigation.
After hearing the parties, the Court noted that the allegations were very serious and that it prima facie shows a premeditated act on the part of the applicant. Moreover, the applicant had admitted that the car in which the assailants went to the house of the de facto complainant belonged to him but could not offer any explanation as to who used the same at the time of the incident, which was around midnight.
The Court thus felt that this was not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail, especially since the investigation is in the preliminary stage and custodial interrogation is necessary. It also remarked that investigation may be impeded and witnesses are likely to be influenced.
“Considering the gravity of the offence and stage of the investigation, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of BNSS could be invoked,” the Court remarked, dismissing the bail application.
Case No: Bail Appl. No. 3944 of 2026
Case Title: Ismail C. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 405
Counsel for the petitioner: M.P. Priyeshkumar, Shanavas Nalakkath Randupurayil
Counsel for the respondent: Thomas Sabu Vasekekut – Public Proecutor