Successive pre-arrest bail requires material change in facts or law; absent that, it is abuse of process.

ORDER

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 accused No.3 in Crime No.46/2026 of Manjeswar Police Station, Kasaragod District. The offences alleged are punishable underSections 127(7) read withSection 3(5) of theBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(for short, theBNS) which were subsequently altered toSections 333, 308(2) and 309(2) of theBNS.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 14.1.2026 at about 12 pm, at Hosangady in Manjeshwar Village, the applicant along with the remaining accused, in furtherance of their common intention, trespassed into room No.206 of Grand lodge, which was occupied by the de facto complainant and his girlfriend, the accused No.1 forcibly took their semi-nude photos and demanded ₹2,00,000/- and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri. Adil M.H., 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 learned counsel relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court inBabu Singh and Others v. State of U.P. [ (1978) 1 SCC 579 ] and that of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Imratlal Vishwakarma and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1996 SCC OnLine MP 59) submitted that there is no bar for an accused to make successive application for pre-arrest bail on separate grounds. The learned counsel further submitted that certain vital documents which would prove the innocence of the applicant could not be produced at the time of consideration of the first bail application.

6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, 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. 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 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 , 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