Subsequent bail applications must show a substantial change in facts or law to be considered.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 2ND MAGHA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 14537 OF 2025 CRIME NO.493/2025 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2025 IN Bail Appl.

NO.6945 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER:

JOSHIBA BONIFACE AGED 44 YEARS SON OF BONIFACE, PUTHEN PURAYIL VEEDU, THAZHUTHALA, MYLAKKADU, KOLLAM, PIN - 691571 SRI.IRFAN ZIRAJ SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY, PIN - 682031 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691003 SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA, SR. PP.

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

22.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

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

2. The applicant is the accused No.3 in Crime No.493/2025 of Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c), 27A and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, NDPS Act).

3. The prosecution case in short is that on 21.03.2025 at

3.45 p.m., the police party seized 36.86 grams of MDMA from the possession of accused No.1. The allegation against the applicant is that he financed the purchase of the contraband article and entered into a criminal conspiracy to procure the contraband article.

4. I have heard Sri.Irfan Ziraj, 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 he has been falsely implicated in the case. The learned counsel further submitted that since principle of res judicata or estoppel does not apply to criminal jurisprudence, there is no bar for an accused person to make successive bail application on sufficient grounds.

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 applicant, and if he is released on bail, it will affect the course of the investigation. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the applicant has not pleaded or established any change in circumstances of the case since the dismissal of the first bail application filed by him. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor also submitted that, in the earlier proceedings, all the points available to the applicant 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