The court reaffirmed that pre-arrest bail is not to be granted as a matter of course, especially in serious offenses where custodial interrogation is necessary.

O R D E R

This application is 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.2 in Crime No.80/2025 of Vatakara Excise Range Office, Kozhikode District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22(b), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act').

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

11.10.2025, the applicant and accused No.1 were found in possession of 4.14 grams of Methamphetamine and 1.230 kilograms of ganja in contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Abhilash T.M., the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.C.Ashi, 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 bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the applicant's intentional criminal acts, 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 under Section 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 case records would show that, upon receiving reliable information, the excise party conducted a search in the house of accused No.1 as well as a vehicle parked in front of the house of accused No.1, which belonged to the applicant. From the house of the accused No.1, 1.230 kilograms of granja were seized and from the vehicle parked in front of the house of the accused No.1, 4.14 grams of methamphetamine were seized. Even though the applicant had contended that his vehicle was at an automobile garage, the seizure mahazar and the remaining materials available on record would show that in fact the vehicle of the applicant was parked in front of the house of accused No.1 and the methamphetamine was seized from the said vehicle.

7. 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, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of BNSS could be invoked. The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-