1. An application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for pre-arrest bail in connection with alleged criminal offences committed outside a family court premises. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74909
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
Divakaran Kp – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 6728 OF 2026
Important Points
Pre-arrest bail may be granted when the evidence (such as CCTV footage and wound certificates) does not support the severity of the allegations and custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary for the investigation.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Pre-arrest Bail - Custodial Interrogation - Necessity - Where CCTV footage and medical evidence do not support the prosecution's specific allegations of assault with a weapon and there is lack of evidence regarding the intention to outrage modesty, custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary. (Para 6)
(B) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Outraging Modesty - Interpretation - Mere touching during an altercation without evidence of specific intent to outrage modesty does not warrant continued detention during investigation. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the evidence available in the case diary and CCTV footage.
(B) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Outraging Modesty - Interpretation - Mere touching during an altercation without evidence of specific intent to outrage modesty does not warrant continued detention during investigation. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the evidence available in the case diary and CCTV footage.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Albin A. Joseph, R. Mahesh Varma
For the Respondents: Aneeda Beegum
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Albin A. Joseph, R. Mahesh Varma
For the Respondents: Aneeda Beegum
Table of Contents
2. The applicant claims innocence and lack of evidence, while the prosecution contends that the applicant's intentional criminal acts necessitate custodial interrogation to avoid disrupting the investigation. (Para 5 )
3. The court scrutinized CCTV evidence and the First Information Statement, finding no proof of the alleged mobile phone usage and insufficient evidence of intent to outrage modesty. (Para 6 )
4. Where the allegations, as presented in evidence like CCTV footage, lack prima facie support for the specific essential ingredients of the charged offences, custodial interrogation is unnecessary. (Para 6 )
5. The application for pre-arrest bail is allowed subject to terms regarding bond execution, witness non-contact, investigation cooperation, and restrictions on travel and future criminal conduct. (Para 6 )
6. What standard does the court apply when evaluating the necessity of custodial interrogation for pre-arrest bail?
The court evaluates the evidentiary strength of the allegations, such as reviewing CCTV footage to determine if the material facts align with the specific intent required by the charged offences. (Para 6 )
7. Does a failure to substantiate the specific intent of an offence under Section 74 of the BNS justify granting pre-arrest bail?
Yes, if the court finds that the evidence does not clearly indicate the required intention to outrage modesty, custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary, warranting the grant of pre-arrest bail. (Para 6 )
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.310/2026 of Thalassery Police Station, Kannur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 296(b), 351(2) and Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNS).
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 19.02.2026, at about 12.30 p.m., outside the premises of the Family Court, Thalassery, the applicant, harbouring animosity towards the victim for not supporting the settlement of family disputes between the applicant and his wife, abused the victim in obscene language, threatened that he would not allow her to live peacefully and thereby committed the aforementioned offences.
4. I have heard Sri.R. Mahesh Varma, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Aneeda Beegum, 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 above crime. 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 victim is a practicing lawyer. She was appearing for the wife of the applicant in a matrimonial case pending before the Family Court, Thalassery. The allegation is that the applicant assaulted the victim at the Court premises and outraged her modesty for the reason that she appeared against him at the Family Court. The non-bailable offences alleged against the applicant are under Sections 118(1) and 74 of the BNS. Initially Section 74 of the BNS was not incorporated. It was added subsequently. A perusal of Annexure A4 order passed by the Sessions Court, Thalassery rejecting the bail application would show that the learned Sessions Judge had viewed the CCTV footage of the incident. The allegation is that the applicant assaulted the victim using a mobile phone. However, the CCTV footage does not reveal anything to indicate that a mobile phone was used to assault the victim. Even the wound certificate does not contain any such allegation. A reading of the FIS would show that, during the altercation, the applicant touched the victim's chest. However, there is nothing to suggest that it was with the intention to outrage her modesty. Considering the allegations made against the applicant, his custodial interrogation seems unnecessary. For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant.
In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may be.
(ii) The applicant shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for discovery, if any, as and when demanded.
(iii) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. He shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.
(v) The applicant shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.
(vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permissio
