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) 29694

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
Ahanyu M.S – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 2306 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Hilal Babu
For the Respondents: K.A. Noushad

Pre-arrest bail is not granted as a matter of course and requires a special case to be established; where allegations of serious sexual assault involve a vulnerable person and the investigation is at a preliminary stage, custodial investigation is deemed necessary, justifying the refusal of bail.

Headnote:The applicant sought anticipatory bail under S. 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding allegations of sexual assault and abuse against a differently-abled person under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is not a matter of course and requires a special case to be made out. The core issue was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail despite the severity of the accusations. The Court reasoned that given the gravity of the offence and the preliminary stage of the investigation, custodial interrogation was essential and the risk of the applicant interfering with witnesses could not be excluded. The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.

Table of Content
1. provisions invoked in the anticipatory bail plea regarding serious alleged crimes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contentions of parties regarding innocence versus necessity of investigation. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's discretion to deny bail due to gravity of offence and investigation necessity. (Para 6 , 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.174/2026 of Aryanad Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 92 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows:- The applicant, who got acquainted with the victim knowing that the victim is a differently-abled person, took the victim to an unoccupied house and sexually exploited him. It is alleged that, the applicant, on several occasions, after forcefully giving Ganja filled beedi, cigarettes, beer and other narcotic substances to the victim, sexually exploited him and threatened him with fear of death.

4. I have heard Sri.Hilal Babu, 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. I went through the FI Statement.

There is serious allegation of sexual assault.

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