SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13750

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
GEORGE MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 966 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.49/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI, SMT.S.R.REMYA, SHRI.BINNY.A.THOMAS, SRI.C.M.EBRAHIM, SRI.SHOUKATH HUSAIN, SRI.JERRYMON ABRAHAM, HANNAH LOVIS PAUL, SRI.AMAL ANTONY
For the Respondents: SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP

Pre-arrest bail under Section 482 requires a compelling case; serious allegations and ongoing investigations must be considered.

Headnote:This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre-arrest bail. The prosecution alleges the applicant assaulted the defacto complainant over a debt which resulted in serious injuries. The court finds substantial evidence of a premeditated criminal act, warranting denial of bail. The court's decision is based on the serious nature of the accusations as well as the ongoing investigation, concluding that the request for bail lacks justification.

Table of Content
1. key facts regarding the assault and its context. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments for and against granting bail. (Para 5)
3. court's rationale against granting bail. (Para 6)
4. final decision on the bail application. (Para 8)

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.49/2026 of Thenmala Police Station, Kollam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 118(1) and 110 read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the defacto complainant owed money to the applicant and following the failure of the defacto complainant to pay the money, the accused persons had assaulted him at 22 hours on 13.01.2026. Firstly, the accused persons had deflated the tyres of the pickup van of the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the accused No.1 had struck the head of the defacto complainant with a stone. When the defacto complainant attempted to run away, accused No.1 pursued him and again struck his head with a stone. There was a large wound on the head which required 12 stitches to repair the same and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Jobi A. Thampi, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.K.A.Noushad, 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 and the defacto complainant sustained deep lacerated wound on the parietal region during the incident.

7. The investigation is in a preliminary stage.

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.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is prepared to surrender before the investigating officer. If the applicant surrenders before the investigating officer within one week from today, the investigating officer shall interrogate him and after interrogation if the investigating officer forms an opinion that the applicant is to be arrested, the investigating officer shall record the arrest of the applicant and produce him before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The bail application if any moved by the applicant shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law, as far as possible on the same day itself. A copy of the bail application shall be given to the learned Public Prosecutor in advance.

The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed with the above observations.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top