The court reaffirmed that prior dismissals of bail applications and lack of new circumstances justify rejecting subsequent applications.

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.1 in Crime No.988/2025 of Kuttipuram Police Station, Malappuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 305(e) and 285 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Section 117 (e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 ; Sections 20 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and Sections 132 and 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 06.10.2025 at about 3.30 a.m., accused Nos.1 to 4, with the intention and knowledge to commit the above said offences, illegally excavated river sand belonging to the Government from a place on the Bharathapuzha riverbank, without obtaining any licence or permission from the Local Self Government Institution or any other authority as required under law, thereby violating the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 . They committed theft of the said sand and transported it in the lorry bearing registration No. KL-55-C-0975 driven by the applicant, through the Kuttippuram–Edappal road from the Kuttippuram side towards the Edappal side. At Kanjirakkutti, the complainant, who was on night patrol duty, noticed this and signalled the vehicle to stop. However, the vehicle did not stop and continued moving. With the intention of obstructing the complainant from carrying out his official duty, accused Nos.2 to 4, who were driving vehicles bearing registration Nos.KL 54 H 7409, KL 54 N 4079, and KL 54 N 1098, dangerously created a roadblock in front of the chasing police vehicle, enabling the applicant to escape from the sand-laden lorry. Thus, the applicant is said to have committed the above-mentioned offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Neeraj Krishna Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The first bail application, filed as B.A. No. 13945/2025, was dismissed on merits, holding that there is prima facie case to show the involvement of the applicant in the crime and he has strong criminal antecedents. In the present bail application, absolutely no change of circumstance has been shown for entertaining the second pre-arrest bail application. But instead, the applicant has only stated that he has not filed any other bail application before any other court other than B.A. No.13945/2025. The outcome of the said bail application has not been stated at all. To be more precise, the fact that the earlier pre-arrest bail application was dismissed on merits was not disclosed. It is nothing but a suppression of facts. Hence, I hold that this bail application is misconceived.

Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.