AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
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 sole accused in Crime No.327/2026 of Maranalloor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296(b), 333, 117(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The prosecution case, in short, is that on 13/08/2026 around 7 pm, the applicant, due to the misunderstanding that the police came to his house, after the tip given off by the de-facto complainant and owing to the said enmity, the applicant trespassed into the hall of the house of the de-facto complainant with a knife in his hand, showered him with abusive words, threatened him with knife, hit the de-facto complainant on the left shoulder, causing a fracture, beat him on his head, chest, cheek, abdomen and thereby committed the offences.
I have heard Sri. Arun Chand, 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. The defacto complainant sustained fracture 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 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.