Saranraj & 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 4 in Crime No.741/2026 of Vatakara Police Station, Kozhikode District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2) and 110 r/w 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case, in short, is that, on 17.07.2026 at 06.10 p.m., the applicants along with the accused Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6 and some other persons intercepted a bike bearing Reg.No.KL-18/AH-5599 ridden by the defacto complainant while he was going to Ayanchery from Chemmarathur. The applicant No.2 with a large piece of log beat on the right shoulder of the defacto complainant and the accused No.5 with an iron pipe beat on the thigh of the defacto complainant. When the accused No.5 again attempted to beat on the head of the defacto complainant with the same iron pipe, he successfully evaded the same. He sustained an injury on his right ear and thereby the applicants committed the offences.

I have heard Sri.P.Jeril Babu, 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 are very serious in nature, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on their part. The applicant No.1 is the accused No.2. The report filed by the Investigating Officer would show that the name of the applicant No.2/accused No.4 has been deleted from the array of the accused. I went through the FIS. Specific overt act has been attributed against the applicant No.1, who is the accused No.2. The defacto complainant had sustained injury in the incident. 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 learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant No.1 is ready to surrender before the investigating officer. Accordingly, this bail application is disposed of on the following conditions: