Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy, requiring clear justification, particularly when custodial interrogation is deemed necessary based on specific allegations.

The application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ' BNSS '), for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.829/2024 of the Anchal Police Station, Kollam, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 118(1), 126(2), 296(b) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short, 'BNS')

3. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on

20.07.2024, at around 11.30 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, when the defacto complainant had visited the house of the accused in connection with certain loan proceedings, the 1st accused abused him in filthy language and the 2nd accused assaulted the defacto complainant with a key and inflicted hurt on his eye. The 3rd accused also abused the defacto complainant and others. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri.Shaijan C.George, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the accusations leveled against them. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 118 (1) of the BNS to deny bail to the petitioners. In fact, the incident occurred in the house of the petitioners. The petitioners' custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the petitioners may be granted an order of pre-arrest bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that there is specific overt act alleged against the 2 nd petitioner/ 2 nd accused who used a key and inflicted a grievous injury on the defacto complainant. He made available the accident register cum wound certificate dated 20.07.2024 issued by the Community Health Centre, Anchal to substantiate the nature of injuries suffered by the two injured. He stated that the 2nd accused had used a key and assaulted the defacto complainant knowing fully well that it would cause grievous injury to him. The 2nd accused's custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected for the proper and full fledged investigation of the crime.

If the 2nd petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would hamper the investigation. Hence, the application in respect of the 2 nd petitioner/2 nd accused may be dismissed. Nonetheless, he did not dispute the fact that there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioners 1 and 3 so as to attract the offence under Section 118 (1) of the BNS, though that is a matter to be investigated and ultimately decided at the time of trial.

7. On a closer scrutiny of the materials on record, it can be gathered that there is a specific overt act alleged against the 2nd petitioner, who inflicted hurt on the two injured which prima facie stands corroborated by the accident register cum wound certificate referred to above. However, that is matter to be investigated and decided at the time of trial.

8. In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another, [(2012) 4 SCC 379], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, an order of pre-arrest bail being an extra ordinary privilege, should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Courts has to be properly exercised, after proper application of mind, to decide whether it is a fit case to grant an order of pre-arrest bail. The court has to be prima facie satisfied that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime and his liberty is being misused.

9. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly on considering the fact that there is prima facie material to substantiate the 2 nd petitioner's involvement in the crime, the 2 nd petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected, I