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 accused No.1 in Crime No.356/2026 of Cumbamettu Police Station, Idukki District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 329(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 127(1) and 324(5) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The prosecution case, in short, is that on 21.07.2026 at about 09:00 a.m, at Kampiline Junction, Padikappu Kara, Mannamkandam Village, the applicant along with the remaining accused in furtherance of their common object, trespassed into the cardamom plantation owned by the defacto Complainant, a lady and assaulted her all over her body and thereby committed the offences.
I have heard Sri. Sinu G. Nath, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. V. Vinay, 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. Another crime was registered on an earlier occasion against the applicant for assaulting the defacto complainant. In the said crime, the applicant was released on bail by this Court on condition that the applicant shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail. Violating the said condition, the applicant has now involved in this crime.
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.