BNSS Section 483 | Bail Granted When Trial Court Erroneously Overstates Absconding Period: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court recently granted regular bail to an accused charged with possessing and using counterfeit currency, despite his history of absconding. The Court intervened after identifying a factual error in the trial court's order, which incorrectly stated the duration of the accused's absence. This judgment underscores the importance of accurate procedural records in bail determinations and reaffirms that even absconding accused may be entitled to bail if detention is no longer necessary.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Abi, aged 44, is accused No.1 in Crime No.923/2018 of Alathur Police Station, Palakkad District. The case involves allegations under Sections 489, 489B, and 489C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 34 IPC, concerning the possession and use of counterfeit Indian currency notes.

Key Facts

• On 28.11.2018, an FIR was registered alleging that the accused possessed counterfeit Rs.200 notes with knowledge of their forgery.
• The accused allegedly used these notes to purchase food materials from Laya Bakery, owned by CW5.
• The petitioner was initially granted bail during the crime stage on 02.03.2019.
• After failing to appear before the trial court, a non-bailable warrant was issued against him.
• The petitioner was arrested on 23.04.2026 and remanded to judicial custody.

Procedural History

• 28.11.2018: FIR registered (Crime No. 923/2018) under Sections 489, 489B, and 489C IPC.
• 02.03.2019: Petitioner granted bail during the investigation stage.
• 15.10.2025: Non-bailable warrant issued for the first time against the petitioner.
• 27.02.2026: Next posting date before the petitioner's arrest.
• 23.04.2026: Petitioner arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
• 11.06.2026: Trial court dismissed the bail application (Annexure A3), holding that the petitioner had been absconding since 2019.
• 01.07.2026: Present bail application filed before the Kerala High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner

• The petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated.
• No materials connect the petitioner to the crime.
• The trial court's finding that the petitioner was absconding since 2019 is incorrect, as evidenced by Annexure A2 (proceedings sheet).
• The petitioner has been in custody for over sixty days, and further detention is unnecessary.

For the Respondent/State

• The petitioner intentionally committed the alleged offences.
• The petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage due to the gravity of the offence and his history of absconding.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, arguing that his continued detention was unwarranted given the incorrect factual finding by the trial court.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether an accused, who had been absconding but had been in custody for over sixty days, is entitled to bail under Section 483 BNSS, particularly when the trial court's finding on the duration of absconding was factually incorrect.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• The petitioner relied on Annexure A2, the proceedings sheet, to demonstrate that the trial court's finding of a seven-year absconding period was erroneous.
• The non-bailable warrant was issued only on 15.10.2025, and the petitioner was arrested on 23.04.2026, indicating a much shorter period of absence.
• The petitioner had already been in custody for over sixty days, and further detention was not justified.

For the Respondent/State

• The Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioner's intentional criminal acts and history of absconding disentitled him to bail.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the procedural history and the trial court's order dated 11.06.2026 (Annexure A3), which dismissed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner had been absconding since 2019. However, the Court noted that Annexure A2, the proceedings sheet, contradicted this finding. The non-bailable warrant was issued only on 15.10.2025, and the petitioner was arrested on 23.04.2026, indicating that the absconding period was significantly shorter than alleged.

The Court emphasized that the trial court's factual error warranted intervention. It observed that the petitioner had been in custody for over sixty days, and his further detention was not necessary for the investigation or trial. The Court relied on the principle that bail should not be denied merely on the gravity of the offence if the accused's detention is no longer required.

"The applicant has been in custody for more than sixty days, and his further detention is not necessary. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail."

The Verdict

The Kerala High Court allowed the bail application under Section 483 BNSS and directed the petitioner's release on the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum each.
2. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature while on bail.
3. The petitioner shall not contact any prosecution witnesses or tamper with evidence.
4. The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the trial court's permission.
5. Any application for modification or cancellation of bail conditions shall be filed before the jurisdictional court.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Procedural Accuracy Is Non-Negotiable

• Courts must ensure that factual findings, especially those related to bail, are accurate and based on verified records.
• Practitioners should scrutinize procedural documents, such as proceedings sheets, to identify and challenge factual errors that may prejudice their clients.

Bail Can Be Granted Despite Absconding History

• The judgment reaffirms that even an accused with a history of absconding may be granted bail if their continued detention is unnecessary.
• The duration of custody and the need for further detention are critical factors in bail determinations under Section 483 BNSS.

The Role of Annexures in Bail Applications

• Annexures, such as proceedings sheets and orders, play a crucial role in bail applications. They can disprove incorrect factual findings and strengthen the case for bail.
• Practitioners should always verify the accuracy of trial court records and use them to correct procedural errors.