The necessity for custodial interrogation and involvement in serious criminal acts justifies denial of pre-arrest bail.

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 accused No.3 in Crime No.1465/2025 of Puthencruze Police Station, Ernakulam. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296 (b), 351(2), 115(1), 118(2) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 ( BNS ).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on

15.09.2025 at about 8.30 p.m., while the defacto complainant was moving through Chenganattu Junction from the IOC petrol pump, the accused, four in numbers, due to previous animosity, kicked on the chest of the defacto complainant, as a result of which he fell down on the ground. Thereafter, accused nos.1 to 4 started to assault him with an iron weapon in their hands, causing fracture of the nasal bone and left zygomatic arch of the defacto complainant and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Saju K.T., the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.K. Pushpalatha, the learned Senior 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. I went through the FIS. Specific overt act has been alleged against the applicant and the defacto complainant/injured has sustained serious injuries including fractures.

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.