Latest news with #BechuKurianThomas
Time of India
4 days ago
- Time of India
Accused should be produced in court within 24 hours of detention: HC
Kochi: The mandatory period of 24 hours to produce an accused before the magistrate begins from the curtailment of their liberty after being taken into custody, and not from the official recording of their arrest, the high court has held. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the ruling in a bail petition filed by Biswajit Mandal of West Bengal in an NDPS case. Mandal was allegedly found in possession of 26.92kg of ganja at Ernakulam South railway station at 3pm on Jan 25, 2025. His arrest was recorded at 2pm the next day, and he was produced before the magistrate at 8pm. In his petition, Mandal alleged that his arrest was in violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and that he was therefore entitled to be released on bail. The court thus addressed the issue of whether the mandatory 24-hour period to produce an accused before the magistrate starts from the time of arrest as recorded by the police or from the moment the accused is detained. The court appointed two law interns, Nikhina Thomas and Neha Babu, second-year students of Ramaiah College, Bengaluru, as amici curiae to assist in the matter. Both submitted that the 24-hour clock for production before the magistrate begins from the moment of effective curtailment of liberty, not from the formal recording of arrest. Referring to various decisions of the Supreme Court, the bench agreed with their contention and held that the period for producing an accused before the magistrate begins when the person is taken into custody. Accordingly, HC granted Mandal bail on the condition that he executes a bond of Rs 1 lakh with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
New Indian Express
4 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
24 hour period to produce accused begins from detention: Kerala HC
KOCHI: In a landmark judgment, the Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that the 24-hour period to produce an accused before the magistrate commences from the time the person was effectively detained or his liberty curtailed, not when the actual time of arrest is recorded by the police. The court pointed out that the technique of not recording the arrest under one pretext or another is often resorted to under the guise of investigation. Police brutalities generally occur during these periods of uncontrolled authority. Unless there is a check, such unrecorded periods of custody can be the source of human rights violations, the HC said. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the Constitution mandates that the person arrested be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest. Other than the time necessary to reach the court of the magistrate from the place of arrest, there is a peremptory prohibition that the person arrested shall not be detained beyond the said period without the magistrate's authority. The court issued the order while granting bail to Biswajit Mandal of West Bengal, an accused in a drug case, who argued that he was detained beyond the 24-hour period in violation of the constitutional and statutory prescriptions and hence ought to be released on bail. To decide the legal issue – when does the 24-hour period to produce an accused before the magistrate commences – the court appointed Nikhina Thomas and Neha Babu, second-year students of Ramaiah College, Bengaluru, as amici curiae for assistance.
Time of India
30-07-2025
- Time of India
Bail mandatory after 180 days in custody, can't cite holidays to extend filing of final report: Kerala high court
Kochi: If the last date for filing the final report in a case, as prescribed under BNSS, falls on a holiday and the report is filed on the next working day, it cannot be considered as filed within the specified time. Therefore, statutory bail to the accused cannot be denied, the Kerala high court has held. The bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the ruling while considering the bail plea of Sanal Satheesh of Cheranallur in Ernakulam, in connection with an NDPS case in which he allegedly transported 25.233kg of ganja in a vehicle. He was arrested on Oct 16, 2024, and the final report in the case was filed on April 15, 2025. In his bail plea, Satheesh contended that if the investigation is not completed within the 180 days prescribed under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, read with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, as the case may be, the accused is entitled to be released on bail. He further argued that he had completed 180 days in custody in the case and was therefore entitled to statutory bail. The prosecution opposed the contention and stated that although April 13, 2025, was the last date for filing the final report to continue the remand, it being a Sunday, and the following day a public holiday due to Vishu, the final report was filed only on April 15. It was argued that, by virtue of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, since the deadline fell on a holiday, the period stood extended to the next working day, and hence the final report was filed within time. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Indonesia: New Container Houses (Prices May Surprise You) Container House | Search ads Search Now Undo Therefore, the petitioner could not claim the benefit of statutory bail. HC, however, held that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act had no application in the present case, as the provision applies only when an act is required to be done or a proceeding is to be taken in any court or office within a period prescribed by law. Since Section 187 of the BNSS does not prescribe any time limit for the police to file a final report, but merely empowers the magistrate to authorise custody, the provision was found inapplicable. Consequently, HC granted bail to Satheesh, subject to certain conditions.
Time of India
10-07-2025
- Time of India
IB officer accused in case related to woman colleague's death gets bail
Kochi: The Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer who is the sole accused in the case related to the death of a 24-year-old female IB officer has been granted bail by high court. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed his bail petition and directed that he be released on executing a bond for Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like amount. HC also directed him to file an affidavit providing details of his mobile number and residential address. According to prosecution, the woman officer, employed with the Bureau of Immigration at the Trivandrum International Airport, was found dead near the railway tracks at Chakka Railway Bridge in Thiruvananthapuram on March 24. Her family alleged that the accused officer had sexually assaulted her and defrauded her of around Rs 3.5 lakh. The investigation revealed that she had been living with the accused, who was simultaneously involved in relationships with other women. The deceased had been transferring her entire salary to him since Oct 2024. In his plea, the accused submitted that he had surrendered before the investigating officer on May 27 and had been in custody for 44 days, and that further custody was unnecessary. The public prosecutor and the defacto complainant — the victim's mother — opposed the plea, contending that the accused was absconding during the initial phase of investigation and may do so again if released. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Brain tumor has left my son feeling miserable; please help! Donate For Health Donate Now Undo However, HC noted that the main purpose of the investigation had already been carried out, and his mobile phone had been recovered, with its data sent for forensic analysis. While the petitioner is alleged to have sexually exploited the woman under a false promise of marriage and abetted her suicide, HC held that there was no likelihood of him tampering with evidence. Accordingly, bail was granted.
Time of India
10-07-2025
- Time of India
Courts should exercise caution when dealing with rape charges in consensual relationship: Kerala HC
Kochi: High court has stated that courts must exercise caution when two young individuals engage in a consensual physical relationship and a rape allegation is later made regarding their union. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Refusing bail blindly in such cases, without considering the surrounding circumstances, can lead to injustice and irreparably damage a young person's life. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made these observations while allowing a petition filed by a 27-year-old man from Malappuram seeking pre-arrest bail in a rape case. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had raped a 23-year-old married woman from Thiruvananthapuram, who is also a medical student, in a hotel room near Thamarassery in 2024. The complainant, who currently lives separately from her husband, became acquainted with the petitioner through Instagram, and their relationship continued through a messaging platform. Under the pretext of returning home for study leave, she boarded a train to Kozhikode on Nov 3, 2024, where the petitioner picked her up. Together, they travelled to Wayanad. Enroute, they checked into a hotel near Thamarassery and spent the night there. The following day, they travelled to Tirur and stayed at another hotel. On Nov 5, 2024, she returned to Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint was filed on April 4, 2025, which the petitioner claimed was due to a breakdown in their relationship. Upon reviewing the case records, the bench noted that the complainant had gone to meet the petitioner of her own volition and had willingly stayed with him in two different hotels. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now There was nothing prima facie to suggest rape, except for a bare allegation that the petitioner had engaged in a forceful sexual relationship with her. The court observed that when a married woman voluntarily travels from Thiruvananthapuram to Kozhikode and stays with the petitioner in different lodges over two nights, it cannot be assumed that the physical relationship between them lacked consent. A consensual relationship turning sour at a later stage cannot be a valid ground to allege rape. HC also pointed out that there could be no claim of consent obtained under a false promise of marriage, as the complainant remains in a subsisting marriage. HC emphasized that rape is a heinous crime, and such an allegation, once made, can severely affect a young person's life. The stigma of such an accusation may persist even after an acquittal. If the accused is arrested and remanded before being found guilty, the damage may be irreversible. Therefore, courts must exercise caution in such cases. Allowing the bail petition, HC held that courts cannot remain unmindful of the changing social milieu when considering bail applications filed by young individuals accused of rape following a consensual relationship.
