Second applications for pre-arrest bail require significant change in circumstances to be considered valid under law.

O R D E R

This is the second application 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.1653/2025 of Mananthavady Police Station, Wayanad District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 74, 75(1)(i), 75(1)(ii), 75(1)

(iv), 75(2) and 75(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 16.12.2025 at about 6.35 pm, in front of the Payyola Bakery at Koyileri town in Payyamballi amsom, the applicant insulted the defacto complainant by uttering obscene words with sexual intent, pulled her saree, grabbed her breast and thereby outraged her modesty. Further, he assaulted her by beating with his hand, caused injuries to her head, back and hand and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Navaneeth N. Nath, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The investigation is practically over, and hence the custodial interrogation is not necessary, added the counsel.

6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal act of the applicant, and if he is released on bail, it will affect the course of the investigation. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the applicant has not pleaded or established any change in circumstances of the case since the dismissal of the first bail application filed by him. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor also submitted that, in the earlier proceedings, all the points available to the applicant have been urged and negatived by this court. In the absence of any change in fact situation or in law after the dismissal of the first application, the second application is not maintainable, submitted the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

7. The law regarding the grant of pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. Grant of pre-arrest bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence, and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. The extraordinary power of the High Court and the Court of Session to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./482 of BNSS could be exercised with a significant amount of prudence, care, and caution and only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. While exercising powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./482 of , the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the investigational right of the police.

8. The order granting or refusing to grant a pre-arrest bail application is a final order, and the entertainment of a second application essentially leads to a review of the earlier order.

However, a second or subsequent application for pre-arrest bail is not completely barred. It cannot be entertained in routine as well. An accused must establish the change in the circumstances sufficient to persuade the court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to maintain the application for prearrest bail for the second time. A material change in fact situation or law is sine qua non for a second application for pre-arrest bail. The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav [(2005 (2) KLT SN 4 (C.No. 3) SC = AIR 2005 SC 921 ] considered the legality and propriety of successive bail applications.

It was held in