Pre-arrest bail is not granted as a matter of course and is denied where serious allegations are present pending investigation.

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.6 in Crime No.1559/2025 of Gandhinagar Police Station, Kottayam. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 61 (2), 140(3), 127(2), 118(1), 115(2), 351(3) and 309(4) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

3. The prosecution case in short is that the defacto complainant was a former employee of accused no.7. Accused no.7 suspected that the defacto complainant was storing his business secrets in his mobile phone. For the purpose of obtaining the mobile phone and to retaliate against the defacto complainant, accused no.7, through accused no.6, gave a quotation to hired goons to abduct and assault the defacto complainant and to rob his mobile phone. Accused no.6 arranged the quotation job with the other accused persons. The accused persons acted in concert and accused no.5, who was a former employee of accused no.7, provided the details of the routes routinely taken by the defacto complainant for his travel.

Thereafter, on 15.10.2025 at about 6.45 p.m., accused nos.1 and 2 abducted the defacto complainant in an autorickshaw from near the Ceakay Interiors building by the side of the M.C. Road, close to Vattamoodu autorickshaw stand and took him to Erayilkadavu. From there, along with accused nos.3 and 4, the accused persons forcibly took the defacto complainant inside a car bearing registration No.KL-36-D-6648 and travelled through the Kottayam Municipality. Thereafter, accused nos.1 to 4 assaulted the defacto complainant with their hands and iron rods. When the complainant became severely exhausted, the accused left him near Nagampadam Bridge and threatened to kill him and his family if he informed the police. They also took Rs.5,000/- and a Vivo mobile phone worth Rs.20,000/- from the defacto complainant.

4. I have heard Sri.Nirmal V. Nair, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.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. The investigation so far conducted would reveal that it was the applicant who arranged the quotation. Specific overt act has been alleged against the applicant.

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.