Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted without evidencing a substantial change in circumstances since the dismissal of a prior application.

ORDER This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking pre-

arrest bail.

2. The applicants are the accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.691/2025 of Kaipamangalam Police Station, Thrissur District. The 3^rd respondent is the defacto complainant. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC .

3. The applicant No.1 is a teacher and the applicant No.3 is the Manager of the K.A.M.U.P.School, Kaipamangalam. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicants induced the 3^rd respondent/defacto complainant by publishing an advertisement in a newspaper inviting applications for the post of teacher, interviewed her, demanded a sum of `10 lakhs promising her appointment, and after receiving the said amount on 6.11.2023, engaged her as a teacher in the school for three months without any sanctioned vacancy. Thereafter, she was allegedly dismissed from service and the amount was not repaid.

4. I have heard Sri.Ashik K.Mohamed Ali, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. The learned counsel further submitted that certain vital documents pertaining to Crime No.477/2024 of Kaipamangalam Police Station could not be produced at the time of consideration of the first bail application, which would show that the same incident was the subject matter of the said crime. The investigation is practically over, and hence the custodial interrogation is not necessary, added the counsel.

6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal act of the applicants, and if they are released on bail, it will affect the course of the investigation. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the applicants have not pleaded or established any change in circumstances of the case since the dismissal of the first bail application filed by them. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor also submitted that, in the earlier proceedings, all the points available to the applicants have been urged and negatived by this court. In the absence of any change in fact situation or in law after the dismissal of the first application, the second application is not maintainable, submitted the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

7. The law regarding the grant of pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. Grant of pre-arrest bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence, and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. The extraordinary power of the High Court and the Court of Session to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS could be exercised with a significant amount of prudence, care, and caution and only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. While exercising powers under of , the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the investigational right of the police.

8. The order granting or refusing to grant a pre-

arrest bail application is a final order, and the entertainment of a second application essentially leads to a review of the earlier order. However, a second or subsequent application for pre-arrest bail is not completely barred. It cannot be entertained in routine as well. An accused must establish the change in the circumstances sufficient to persuade the court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to ma