The court requires clear justification to grant pre-arrest bail and weighs the severity of accusations and potential impact on ongoing investigations.

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.1619/2025 of Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant and the de facto complainant were residing in adjacent rooms in a hotel in Kottarakara. On 20-06-2025 at 10.30. p.m., due to previous enmity, while the complainant was entering his room, the applicant came there verbally abusing the complainant and assaulted him with a screwdriver. It is stated that the applicant had punched on his forehead, face, eyes, lips etc. with the screw-driver. In the process, the applicant had destroyed the mobile phone of the complainant and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. I have heard Sri.Nirmal V. Nair, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.G.Sudheer, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to get bail. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

6. The law regarding the grant or refusal of pre-

arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power u/s 482 of BNSS could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. Perusal of the case diary reveals that the accusation made against the applicant is very serious in nature and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. Specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioner. The wound certificate shows that the defacto complainant sustained the following injuries:

“(1) Lacerated wound over start of left eyebrow 5 x 1 x 2 cm bone deep (2) Lacerated wound over start of right eyebrow 3 x 1 x 1 cm (3) Lacerated wound 2 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm over right side of forehead and (4) Loose upper central incisor on right side.”

The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the applicant influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail. Considering the gravity of the offence and stage of the investigation, it is not a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court u/s 482 of BNSS could be invoked. The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.