Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 17151
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
JISHNU @ KANNAPPI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 13980 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.845/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
For the Respondents: SMT.SREEJA V., SR. PP
Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted indiscriminately; substantial reasons must be provided, especially in serious accusations.
Headnote:This case involves an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant is accused of trespassing and theft, and the court found that the serious nature of the accusations and the stage of the investigation did not warrant bail. The court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation and the risk of witness tampering. The bail application was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant accused of serious theft and trespassing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against bail application. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court’s reasoning on denial of bail. (Para 6) |
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 Crime No.845/2025 of Vellathooval Police Station, Idukki District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 305 and 331(4)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant with the intention to commit theft in the house of the defacto complainant, on 18.10.2025 in between 09:00 pm and 10:00 pm., trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant at Kallar Vattayar kara, Anaviratty village, broke open the door lock and attempted to commit theft of currency notes worth Rs.33,000/-, a power bank worth Rs.2,000/-, a mobile charger worth Rs.1,000/- and a perfume worth Rs.800/- from the house. It is further alleged that the applicant also committed theft of cigarettes worth Rs.1,000/-from the shop of the defacto complainant and thereby committed the offences.
4. I have heard Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.V.Sreeja, 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. The CCTV camera installed at the house of the defacto complainant revealed that it was the applicant who trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and committed theft.
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/-
