Pre-arrest bail application dismissed based on serious nature of allegations and need for custodial interrogation.

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 sole accused in OR No.09/2026 of Excise Range Office, Kolazhy, Thrissur District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section

55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act 1 of 1077.

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

24.01.2026 at 10:20 p.m., the applicant was intercepted by the Excise Inspector of Thrissur Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, who conducted a search in the premises of the applicant and found out a total quantity of 125 litres of fermented wash from the property. After the wash was detected and samples were taken, when a search was conducted in the house, the applicant fled from the locality and thereby he committed the above said offence.

4. I have heard Sri. S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Sreeja.V, 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 contraband was seized from the house of the applicant. According to the applicant, the house does not belong to him, but belongs to his father. However, a reading of the mahazar would show that the applicant was very much present in the house. The contraband was seized in his presence. He was present there throughout. He was also questioned by the detecting officer at the spot. He gave his phone number as well. When the Excise party proceeded inside the house to conduct further inspection, he ran away from the spot. The applicant, who was present when the offence was detected and remained there, ran away from the scene of occurrence, has come before this Court seeking an application for pre-arrest bail. This application is nothing, but an abuse of process of the court.

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 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/-