Pre-arrest bail is not a matter of course and is contingent upon the seriousness of allegations and evidence of premeditated criminal acts.

ORDER

This application is filed u/s 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS ') seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The applicants are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.1593/2025 of Puthencruze Police Station, Ernakulam. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 3 29 (3), 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 74 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNS ')

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

12/10/2025 at 12.15 pm, the husband of the defacto complainant took photos of the applicants in mobile phone, clearing the bushes at the applicants' property having boundary disputes between them. Due to that enmity, the applicants trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and the applicant No.1 had restrained her husband and pushed him by holding his neck and the applicant No.2 had uttered obscene words to him and pulled his leg. When the defacto complainant came to resist the same, the applicant No.2 had hit the left hand of the defacto complainant with a wooden stick and her wrist bone got fractured. The applicant No.1 had also twisted her hand and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri. Geevan T. Charles, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri. Sherry J. Thomas, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and Smt. M.K. Pushpalatha, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are 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 applicants, and if they are 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 BNS S 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 applicants is very serious in nature and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on their part. The non bailable offences alleged are under Sections 74 and 118(1) of the . As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the applicants, the allegations are insufficient to attract the offence under Section 74 of the . However, there are sufficient materials to attract the ingredients under Section 118 (1) of . Specific overt act is attracted against the applicants. The wound certificate would show that the defacto complainant has sustained fracture which is serious in nature.

The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in the FIS the defacto complainant stated that the applicants had used a stick for assaulting her and in Annexure A2 certificate it is stated that she was assaulted with a stone. However, the said discrepancy is insignificant and the matter is to be investigated. The fact remains that the defacto complainant sustained injuries and prima facie offence is attracted under Section 118 (1) of the BNS . The stick allegedly used for the commission of the offence was seized from the scene of occurrence. The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary for the investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the applicants influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if they are released on bail. Considering the gravity of the offence and stage of the investigation, it is not a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdi