Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 34578
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
P.K. Nandhanan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 1980 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Chandy Joseph, C.K. Vidyasagar
For the Respondents: Sreeja V.
Pre-arrest bail under S.482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is not granted as a matter of course and will be denied when a serious criminal act is prima facie established and custodial interrogation is necessary for a preliminary stage investigation.
Headnote:The proceedings concern an application for pre-arrest bail filed under S.482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner illegally stored a substantial quantity of explosive substances, including gelatin sticks and detonators, in a rented room. The court reviewed the case diary, finding prima facie evidence of premeditated criminal activity supported by witness statements and electronic evidence, noting that custodial interrogation is essential for the ongoing investigation. The core issue was whether the applicant met the requirements for grant of pre-arrest bail under S.482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court held that pre-arrest bail is not a matter of course and requires a special case. The ratio is that where allegations involve serious offenses, such as the illegal possession of explosives, and where the investigation is in a preliminary stage, the court will decline relief if there is a likelihood that the applicant would interfere with the investigation or influence witnesses. The court dismissed the bail application.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the legal application for pre-arrest bail regarding alleged illegal storage of explosives. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of contentions by the applicant and the state regarding alleged innocence and necessity of investigation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court determination that pre-arrest bail is inappropriate due to the gravity of the offense and necessity for custodial interrogation. (Para 6 , 7) |
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
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.105/2026 of Mundakkayam Police Station, Kottayam District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 5(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.01.2026, the Sub Inspector of Police, Mundakkayam Police Station, received information that a huge quantity of explosive substances were illegally stored in a room situated in the third floor of the Eettickal Tower building situated in Puthanchantha, Ward No. VI of Mundakkayam Grama Panchayat and he conducted a search in the said room in the presence of the accused No.2, who was the occupier of the said building room and recovered explosive substances. During the search, 369 full-size gelatin sticks, 2 half-size gelatin sticks, 130 detonator cords, 20 gunpowder fuses and 4 electric detonators were recovered. The applicant has thus committed the aforementioned offences.
4. I have heard Sri.P Chandy Joseph, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Sreeja V, 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. Explosive substances were recovered from the room occupied by the applicant. The owner of the room has given a statement that he had rented the room to the applicant. Moreover, the CCTV footage reveals that the applicant used to visit the room and take articles from there.
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.
