Pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS not routine; denied for serious offences needing 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 accused No.1 in Crime No.1189/2025 of Kuttipuram Police Station, Malappuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 305 (e) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 20 r/w 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 19.12.2025 at about 06:30 a.m., at Muradavilpadi, the accused was found transporting river sand, without permit in the Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.KL-05-Z-1395 and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.M.Devesh, 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 applicant is the owner-cum- driver of the vehicle in which the illicit sand was transported.

Moreover, the applicant has criminal antecedents.

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.