Al Fahad Nasim vs State Of Kerala

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.5 in Crime No.511/2026 of Mangalapuram Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 323(3), 324(4), 118(1), 118(2) and 109 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 27.08.2026 at about 10.30 p.m., the applicant, the accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7, and a child in conflict with law, along with eight other identifiable accused persons, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, and in prosecution of their common object, trespassed into the courtyards of the residences of one Libeesh, Hemjith and Krishnan, situated near Kailathukonam School in Veyiloor Village, and destroyed the front doors of the houses using weapons. Thereafter, the applicant and the accused Nos.1 to 4, 7 and 8, along with the child in conflict with law, destroyed 10 motorcycles and 2 cars, which were parked on the roadside in front of the said houses, using iron rods. Thereafter, the accused manhandled one Jishnu and proceeded towards the house of the defacto complainant. Then, the accused No.1, using an iron rod, beat the defacto complainant on his head, causing grievous injuries, including a deep wound on the right side of his head. Thereafter, the accused No.2 attacked Anoop, the younger brother of the defacto complainant with a chopper, causing serious injuries, and the accused No.3 attacked Deepu, the elder brother of the defacto complainant, using an iron rod, and when Deepu evaded the said attack, the iron rod struck on his left hand, causing injuries, including fracture of his left wrist. The applicant thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

I have heard Sri.Prajeesh N.P., the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.Aneeda Beegum, the learned Senior 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 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.

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. The defacto complainant has sustained injury in the incident.

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.