A second application for pre-arrest bail is maintainable only upon demonstrating a substantial change in facts or circumstances that did not exist at the time of the previous dismissal; repeating arguments previously considered is not permissible.

ORDER

This is the second application for pre-arrest bail filed by the sole accused in Crime No.113/2026 of Vengara Police Station, Malappuram under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS).

2. The applicant is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 288 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNS) and Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that at about 1.00 pm on 26.02.2026 at Cherekkad in Kannamangalam Village, the applicant was found conducting quarrying activities without any license, endangering human life and animal life and property by using explosive substances and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Balu Tom, 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 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. 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.

7. It is well settled that even though there is no absolute embargo in filing the subsequent application for pre- arrest bail, it can be entertained only if there is substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case which requires the earlier view be interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. Ordinarily, the grounds canvassed in the earlier application cannot be permitted to be reurged in the subsequent application. Nor could the accused in the subsequent application contend that the Court, while considering the earlier bail application, failed to advert to any fact or material on record. A fact which was not in existence at the time of considering the earlier bail application but came into existence subsequently alone could be considered a change in facts and circumstances (See Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav [(2005 (2) KLT SN 4 (C.No. 3) SC = AIR 2005 SC 921] and Suresh v. State of Kerala (2023 (4) KLT 696).

8. Coming to the facts of the case, the first bail application was rejected by this court taking into account the gravity of the offence, the complicity of the applicant in the crime, the stage of investigation and the requirement of the applicant for custodial interrogation. This court on perusal of the entire case diary and after hearing the submission of both sides, found that the accusation made against the applicant is very serious in nature and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. There is no change in any of these circumstances. The second application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant does not spell out any change in the fact situation or circumstance of the case after the dismissal of the first bail application.

The applicant has not made out a case to in