Sarath Lal vs State Of Kerala & Anr.

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.386/2026 of Ariyancode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351 and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case, in short, is that, on 17.07.2026 at about 1.30 p.m., while the defacto complainant was doing office works, the applicant trespassed into the office room, uttered obscene words against him, threatened him and by using a key hit him on his face, causing fracture to his nasal bone. When the defacto complainant fell down, the applicant repeatedly kicked him on his chest and thereby committed the above offences.

I have heard Sri.R.Nikhil, 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 to the applicant. The de facto complainant sustained fracture in the incident. Moreover, the applicant has criminal antecedents. 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.