Jahir Hussain J. & Anr. 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 applicants are the accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.455/2026 of Pozhiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and 324(5) r/w Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused persons with their common intention to cause murder of the defacto complainant, on 19.06.2026 at 4 p.m while the defacto complainant and his cousin came on a Yamaha bike bearing No.TN.75.X.9274 to the rice godown situated at Ayira, Vadoorkkonam in Karode Village to get an amount of ₹6 lakhs from the manager of that godown, the applicants and the accused No.1 locked the gate and obstructed them. The accused No.1 forcefully took away the mobile phones of the defacto complainant and his cousin, the accused No.2 abused them and beat on the back and chest of the information with a wooden log. When the defacto complainant fell down, the accused No.1 beat on the left thigh and chest with an iron square pipe, the applicants, the accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and one identifiable accused hit on the nose and ears of the defacto complainant and kicked on his face. When the cousin of the defacto complainant interfered, the accused No.1 beat him several times with the iron square pipe and when he fell down, the accused No.2 beat him with a rafter on his left leg and foot of his right leg, causing swelling. The accused No.4 pelted bricks on the back of the cousin of defacto complainant, the accused No.5 put water can on the chest of the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the accused persons forcibly took the complainant and his cousin into a room, wrongfully confined and assaulted them. When the brother and friends of defacto complainant came there in search of the defacto complainant, five identifiable accused persons who had followed them in a green auto-rickshaw and six other accused persons present at the rice godown caused damage to the Baleno car bearing Registration No.TN.59.CD.4264, to the tune of ₹1,50,000/-. They also assaulted the four occupants of the said vehicle and caused injuries to them. When one of his friends, Saju tried to escape, one identifiable person struck on his head with a beer bottle, which was warded off by him, causing injury to his nose. Further the accused No.1 attempted to beat on his head with an iron rod, which was warded off by him, otherwise his death would have been caused and thereby the applicants committed the above offences.

I have heard Sri.Mithun Pavanan, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri.Thomas Sabu Vadakekut, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to bail. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the applicants' intentional criminal acts, and if they are 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 applicants is very serious in nature, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on their part. Specific overt acts have been attributed to the applicants. The de facto complainant and his cousin sustained injuries in the incident. Moreover, the applicants have criminal antecedents. They are involved in six other crimes. Even though it is alleged that the applicants have given Annexure A2 complaint against the de facto complainant, as per the instruction of the learned Public Prosecutor, no such complaint has been received at the police station.

The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary for the investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the applicants influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if they are 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.