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) 22142

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
ELDHO T.G. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 1117 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.M.R.Sasith, SMT.R.K.CHIRUTHA, SMT.ANJANA SURESH.E, SMT.REETHU JACOB, SMT.HASNA JABIL, SMT.ANJITHA S., SMT.PRAGATHY PREM NAIR, SMT.MEERA NAIR.I.P, SMT.ANN GINI ROY
For the Respondents: Sri.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP

Pre-arrest bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita requires a special case; serious allegations justify denial.

Headnote:The application for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is considered. The applicant, accused in Crime No. 23/2026, is alleged to have been found in possession of liquor illegally. The court concluded that serious accusations and criminal antecedents of the applicant warranted refusal of bail. The gravity of the offence was highlighted in the court's findings. The court addressed the pivotal issue of whether pre-arrest bail could be granted, noting that a special case must be established. The ratio decidendi emphasized the serious nature of allegations indicating a premeditated act by the accused, thus justifying the refusal to grant bail under the current circumstances. In conclusion, the court determined that given the ongoing investigation and serious nature of the allegations, the bail application was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. arguments presented by the applicant and prosecution. (Para 5)
2. court's reasoning and conclusion regarding bail. (Para 7)

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.

23/2026 of Sulthan Bathery Excise Range Office, Wayanad District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 55 (a), 55(i) and 13 r/w Section 63 of the Kerala Abkari Act 1 of 1077.

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

01.02.2026 at 10.45 a.m., the accused was found in possession of 5.150 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor stored for sale on the bank of Kottur river at Kottur in Thomattuchal Village in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.M.R. Sasith Madhavapanicker Rajendran, 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. The accused ran away from the scene on seeing the excise party. The applicant has criminal antecedents. He is involved in three other crimes of similar nature.

7. 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.

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