The court emphasized that bail cannot be granted lightly in serious cases, especially when premeditated criminal acts are involved.

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 accused No.1 in Crime No.1424/2025 of Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 6 4 (2)(f) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNS ) and Section 4 (2) read with Section 3 (b), Section 6 read with Section 5 (m)(n) and Section 21 read with Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (PoCSO Act).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that between 06.06.2025 and 18.07.2025, the applicant committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim by penetrating his hands into her vagina and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Smt.Kavery.S.Thampi, 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 underSection 482ofBNSScould 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.

7. The applicant has approached this Court with an application for anticipatory bail on an earlier occasion. As per Annexure C order, this Court dismissed the said application holding that the offence alleged against the applicant is grievous in nature and the granting of anticipatory bail would adversely affect the progress of the investigation. The said order has been passed on 25.10.2025. Now the applicant has come up with another application for anticipatory bail alleging that there is change of circumstances in view of Annexure D agreement alleged to have been executed between the father of the applicant and the grandmother of the victim that the matter has been settled. The said agreement is dated 17.10.2025. Since it was executed prior to the dismissal of Annexure C, the contents therein cannot be termed as a change of circumstances. That apart, when a 4 year old victim has been brutally sexually assaulted by her own relative, the grandmother of the victim has no locus standi to enter into a compromise. I went through the allegation in the First Information Statement. The allegation is serious in nature. As stated already, a 4 year old victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault by her own relative.

8. The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Senior 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.