Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Accused Who Absconded For 14 Years; Says Continued Incarceration Unnecessary Since Investigation Is Over

"Apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding the possibility of the petitioner absconding can be obviated by imposing stringent conditions while granting bail", Kerala High Court, in a significant order dated April 24, 2026, granted regular bail to a man accused of participating in a violent attack on a police station despite him having been an absconder for nearly fourteen years.

A single bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that while the allegations of attacking public servants are serious, the petitioner’s continued incarceration was unnecessary as the investigation had been completed long ago and the matter was ripe for trial.

The petitioner, arrayed as the 41st accused, was implicated in a 2012 incident where an unlawful assembly of over 300 people allegedly attacked the Alakkode Police Station and pelted stones at police officers. The prosecution alleged that the mob caused a loss of ₹75,000 to the public exchequer and obstructed officers from discharging their duties. The petitioner had been abroad for over a decade following the incident, leading his case to be transferred to the Long Pending Cases (LPC) register.

The primary question before the Court was whether an accused who has absconded for fourteen years and remained abroad is entitled to bail upon his return and arrest. The Court also considered whether the completion of the investigation and the filing of the final report justified the release of the accused despite the prosecution's fears of a flight risk.

Serious Nature of Attack on Police Station

The Court began by noting the gravity of the offences, which included Sections 143, 147, 148, 283, 332, and 308 read with 149 of the IPC, alongside Section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (PDPP), 1984. Justice Sebastian remarked that the allegation that the petitioner, as part of an unlawful assembly, attacked a police station and assaulted officers performing law and order duties "cannot be viewed lightly." The Court took note of the specific allegation regarding the destruction of public property amounting to ₹75,000.

"The incident occurred in the course of a protest organised by a political party."

Impact of Completed Investigation on Bail

Addressing the long delay, the Court observed that the investigation into the 2012 crime had been completed several years ago. Although the case against the petitioner was moved to the Long Pending Cases Register as L.P.C. No. 5/2021 due to his absence, the final report had already been filed. The Court noted that the petitioner was apprehended only on February 2, 2026, pursuant to a non-bailable warrant, and had been in judicial custody since then.

"Investigation in the case has already been completed and the matter is now ripe for trial."

Balancing Flight Risk with Liberty

The Court acknowledged the prosecution's primary objection that the petitioner might abscond again, given his history of staying abroad for fourteen years. However, the bench held that the purpose of the petitioner’s continued detention must be scrutinized. Justice Sebastian stated that once the investigation is finished and the accused has spent a reasonable time in custody following his arrest, further incarceration serves no practical purpose for the trial process.

"Continued incarceration of the petitioner at this stage would serve no useful purpose."

Imposition of Stringent Conditions

To mitigate the risk of the petitioner fleeing the country again, the Court decided to impose strict conditions rather than denying liberty. The Court ordered the petitioner to execute a bond of ₹1,00,000 with two solvent sureties and mandated a cash deposit of ₹1,000 before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Most crucially, the Court directed the petitioner to surrender his passport to ensure his presence during the trial proceedings.

"The apprehension regarding the possibility of the petitioner absconding can be obviated by imposing stringent conditions."

The Court allowed the bail application, setting aside the earlier orders of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge who had denied bail solely on the ground of the petitioner's long abscondence. The petitioner was directed not to commit any further offences while on bail and to strictly adhere to the conditions of the bond. The Court granted the investigating officer the liberty to move for cancellation of bail should any condition be violated.

The High Court concluded that while the petitioner's 14-year absence was a significant factor, the completion of the probe and his period of custody since February 2026 justified his release. The ruling underscores the principle that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment for past abscondence if trial-related requirements can be secured through conditions.

Date of Decision: 24 April 2026