Jinith & Ors. 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.4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 in Crime No.699/2026 of Kongad Police Station, Palakkad District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 118(1), 118(2) and 109(1) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 27.09.2026 at 02.00 p.m. in front of the CK furniture shop at Mundur Jayalakshmi Stop, the accused Nos.1 to 10, along with about 10 other identifiable accused persons, in prosecution of their common object, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons such as an iron rod, helmet, wooden stick, beer bottle and stones, due to the political enmity towards the defacto complainant and his associates, who are BJP workers, and also due to the previous altercation between the BJP workers and CPM workers at Mundur Panchayath bus stand, attacked the defacto complainant and others. During the attack, one Sivankutty, who accompanied the defacto complainant, sustained serious injuries on his head which would have resulted in his death. Vishnu, Nikhil and Nisob sustained fractures on their hands, and the other persons who accompanied the defacto complainant also sustained injuries. The accused also attacked the defacto complainant on his head with a helmet and wooden stick. Thereby, the accused attempted to murder the defacto complainant and the BJP workers who accompanied him and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

I have heard Sri.A.V.Ravi, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri.V.Vinay, the learned Senior 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 Senior 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. The applicants have been named in the FIS. Specific overt act has been attributed against them. Moreover, three persons have sustained serious injuries, including fractures, in the incident.

The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary for the investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Senior 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.