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 applicants are the accused Nos. 3 to 5 in Crime No.327/2026 of Perumpetty Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296(b), 329(4), 126(2), 118(1), 110 and 351(2), read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The prosecution case, in short, is that, on 24.08.2026 at about 1.30 p.m., at a place namely, Thiyyadickal, after having trespassed into the residential house of the defacto complainant, the accused Nos.1 and 2 caused hurt to him, intimidated him with death and thereafter, at 2.30 p.m., near the waiting shed situated at Thiyyadickal junction, the accused persons arrived there by the autorickshaw, plied by the applicant No.2 and hurling obscene words, the applicant No.1 slapped the defacto complainant on the left cheek and the accused jointly had beaten the defacto complainant and pushed him down, kicked and stamped him using legs and the applicant No.2 struck him with a crowbar and thereby the applicants committed the offences.
I have heard Sri.Anandhu Satheesh. 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 against the applicants in the FI Statement. Moreover, the defacto complainant has sustained fracture 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 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.