IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
BINU RAJAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 761 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.40/2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. involvement of the accused in a serious crime. (Para 2) |
| 2. argument for bail based on alleged innocence. (Para 5) |
| 3. judicial reasoning against granting bail. (Para 6 , 7) |
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.1 in Crime No.40/2026 of Kunnikode Police Station, Kollam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296(b), 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, the de facto complainant is staying with the accused No.2 and he had given 22 grams of gold ornaments to the accused No.2 for pledging the same and when he asked to return the same, the accused No.2 became inimical towards him and on 05.01.2026 at about 05.30 a.m, the accused No.1, who is the son of the accused No.2, with the intention to cause bodily injuries attacked the de facto complainant when he entered the kitchen of his house with rubber stick, abused him with obscene words and the de facto complainant suffered fracture on the right hand and swelling on the left foot and thereby committed the above alleged offences.
4. I have heard Sri. K.Sudhinkumar, 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. Specific overt act has been alleged against the applicant. The de facto complainant has sustained serious injuries in the incident.
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/-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.