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) 13753

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
ANOOP M.J. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 977 OF 2026|CRIME NO.74/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.BOBY THOMAS, SHRI.WINSTON K.V, SHRI.G.MOTILAL, SHRI.PAUL T. SAMUEL, SMT.K.M.FATHIMA
For the Respondents: SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP

Pre-arrest bail requires compelling reasons and cannot be granted as a matter of course; serious allegations and ongoing investigations weigh against granting bail.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The application invokes Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre-arrest bail. The petitioners are accused of serious offences under Sections 329(3), 115(2), 118(1), and 118(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Facts of the Case: The petitioners, in a common intent, allegedly committed trespass and attacked the complainant, causing injury.

Findings of Court:
The Court found serious allegations warranting denial of bail given the ongoing investigation.

Issues: The main question revolves around whether pre-arrest bail can be granted based on the alleged offences and circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court stated that the serious nature of the accusation and the stage of the investigation do not favor bail, underlining that pre-arrest bail is not a matter of course and requires compelling reasons.

Result: The bail application is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. seeking pre-arrest bail under bnss. (Para 1)
2. allegations of trespass and assault. (Para 2)

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 applicants are the accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.74/2026 of Peechi Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 329 (3), 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 accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, committed trespass into the house of the de facto complainant on 21.01.2026 at 03:00 a.m. and pelted the de facto complainant with a stone. Also, he was attacked with stones, hands as well as stamped with legs, as a result of which he suffered a fracture in his right wrist and the accused attacked his son also. Thus, the applicant is alleged to have committed the above said offences. 4. I have heard Sri. Boby Thomas, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri. K.A.Noushad, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the applicants' intentional criminal acts, and if they are 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 applicants is very serious in nature, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on their part. Specific overt act has been alleged against the applicants. All of them have been named in the FIR. The de facto complainant sustained fracture in 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 applicants submitted that the applicants are ready to surrender before the Investigating Officer. If the applicants surrender before the Investigating Officer within one week from today, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate them and after interrogation, if the Investigating Officer forms an opinion that they need to be arrested, after recording their arrest, the applicants shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day. The bail application, if any filed by the applicants shall be disposed of by the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day itself as far as possible. The copy of the bail application shall be given in advance to the Prosecutor.

The bail application is, dismissed with the above observation.

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