The court refused pre-arrest bail due to the serious nature of allegations and ongoing investigation, necessitating custodial interrogation.

ORDER

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 sole accused in Crime No.848/2025 of Udumbanchola Police Station, Idukki District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296 (b), 115(2), 74, 75(1)(i) and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on

8.11.2025 at 10 am at Achankada area, Chemmanar Kara in Udumbanchola Village, the applicant abused the defacto complainant in filthy language causing her mental distress, caught hold of her breasts, pushed her down, thereby outraged her modesty and also hit her on chest causing pain and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri. A. Arunkkumar, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Sreeja V., 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. Specific overt act has been alleged against the applicant in the FIS.

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/-