The court emphasizes the need for clear evidence in granting pre-arrest bail, citing serious allegations against the applicant.

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.2/2026 of Kanakakkunnu Police Station, Alappuzha District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(1) and 118 (2) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that due to a misunderstanding that the defacto complainant had made an improper gesture towards the accused, they with the common intention of causing bodily hurt to him, on 01.01.2026 at 12.30 a.m., intercepted both the defacto complainant and his friend while they were returning home after New Year celebrations. Accused persons arrived in a car bearing Registration No.KL-29-X-3734 and wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and his friend by blocking the motorcycle of them at Kochide Jetty Bridge Junction on the Pullukulangara-Kochide Jetty Road, Kandalloor Village. Accused No.1 caught hold of the collar of the defacto complainant and struck him on the face and nose with a bunch of keys. Thereafter, applicant punched him on his back, and accused Nos. 3 and 4 slapped and punched on his back. When the friend of defacto complainant, by name Mr.Manu, intervened in the incident, the applicant struck on his back with an iron rod, accused No.1 struck him on his face with a bunch of keys, and accused Nos. 3 and 4 caught hold of Mr.Manu and punched on his back, causing fracture to his nose. The defacto complainant sustained injuries on his forehead, eye, lips and thereby committed the offences. 4. I have heard Sri.T.M.Subhash, 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. I went through the FI Statement. Specific overt act has been alleged against the applicant. He used a weapon. The defacto complainant has sustained nasal bone fracture.

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.

Sd/-