Second pre-arrest bail requires material change in facts or law; absent that, not maintainable.

ORDER :

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.

This is the second application for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused No.1 in Crime No.719/2025 of Wadakkanchery Police Station, Thrissur under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS ).

2. The applicant is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. The prosecution case in short is that with fraudulent and dishonest intention by giving a false promise that the applicant can arrange a job of supervisor for the de facto complainant in ISRO, Thiruvananthapuram, the applicant fraudulently received Rs.5,50,000/- from the de facto complainant from 11/04/2022 to 21/5/2022 by way of direct payment, google pay and bank account transfer. Further, it is alleged that the applicant issued a forged letter to the de facto complainant to appear for medical test in connection with the job in ISRO. It is also alleged that in spite of the receipt of the said amount, the applicant did not provide any job or did not return the amount and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Sajith Kumar V., the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The learned counsel relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Babu Singh and Others v. State of U.P. [ (1978) 1 SCC 579 ] and that of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Imratlal Vishwakarma and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1996 SCC OnLine MP 59) submitted that there is no bar for an accused to make successive application for pre-arrest bail on separate grounds. The learned counsel further submitted that certain vital documents which would prove the innocence of the applicant could not be produced at the time of consideration of the first bail application.

6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal act of the applicant, and if he is released on bail, it will affect the course of the investigation. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the applicant has not pleaded or established any change in circumstances of the case since the dismissal of the first bail application filed by him. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor also submitted that, in the earlier proceedings, all the points available to the applicant have been urged and negatived by this court. In the absence of any change in fact situation or in law after the dismissal of the first application, the second application is not maintainable, submitted the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

7. The law regarding the grant of pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. Grant of pre-arrest bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence, and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. The extraordinary power of the High Court and the Court of Session to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS could be exercised with a significant amount of prudence, care, and caution and only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. While exercising powers under , the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the investigational right of the police.

8. The order granting or refusing to grant a pre-arrest bail application is a final order, and the entertainment of a second application essentially leads to a review of the earlier