Pre-arrest bail is denied where serious allegations exist and no change in circumstances is presented.

O R D E R

This is the second bail application filed under Section

482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS ') seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.2188/2025 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 117(2), 110 and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on

06.10.2025 at about 1:30 p.m., at a place namely Nellumukal Elayilpadi, hurling obscene words and intimidating the defacto complainant, the applicant had beaten behind the head and nose of the defacto complainant causing fracture of nasal bone. When the wife of the defacto complainant tried to take him to hospital, the applicant had pelted a stone at the head of the defacto complainant, causing fracture of skull and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Smt. Vidya G. Nair, 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.

7. The first bail application was rejected by this court taking into account the gravity of the offence, the complicity of the applicant in the crime, the stage of investigation and the requirement of the applicant for custodial interrogation. This court on perusal of the entire case diary and after hearing the submission of both sides, found that the accusation made against the applicant is very serious in nature and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. There is no change in any of these circumstances. The second application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant does not spell out any change in the facts or circumstances of the case after the dismissal of the first bail application.

8. 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/-