Ajayan S vs State Of Kerala & Anr.

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS), seeking pre-arrest bail.

The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime No.1246/2026 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 324(4) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant along with the accused Nos.2 to 4 wrongfully restrained and manhandled Siyan and Safar, friends of the defacto complainant, under the misunderstanding that they were thieves, and with the necessary intention to assault them as well as the defacto complainant and his another friend, Sinan, who reached the spot to rescue the aforementioned Siyan and Safar, on 12.09.2026 at 10.40 p.m., wrongfully restrained the bike driven by the said Siyan and Safar. The accused persons took the key of the bike and destroyed their mobile phones and inflicted blows upon them using a stick. The accused No.2 uttered obscene words against the defacto complainant and Sinan. Further, the accused No.2 inflicted a blow upon the left shoulder of the defacto complainant and when Safar prevented the same, the accused No.2 inflicted a blow upon his right thigh. The applicant whirled an iron rod against Safar, causing him injury on his left hand. When the defacto complainant prevented the same, the applicant by uttering obscene words, inflicted a blow upon his head, causing injury to him thereon. Further, the applicant fisted upon the upper back of the defacto complainant and the accused No.3 fisted upon the upper back of Sinan. Consequently, the defacto complainant underwent treatment at the hospital and suffered a loss of Rs.29,000/-(Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand only) due to the destruction of the mobile phone and thereby the applicant committed the offences.

I have heard Sri.V.R.Gopu, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.Thomas Sabu Vadakekut, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

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 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.

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. Specific overt act has been attributed against the applicant in the FI Statement. The defacto complainant has sustained injury in the incident. 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 learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is ready to surrender before the investigating officer. Accordingly, this bail application is disposed of on the following conditions: