AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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. 1 and 2 in Crime No.628/2026 of Pozhiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 92(e) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The prosecution case, in short, is that on 09.06.2026 at about 5.00p.m., the applicant No.1 abused and assaulted the son of the defacto complainant and took him on a motorcycle to another place, where he assaulted him. Thereafter, both the applicants assaulted him near a car workshop at Alayikkonam, threatened him and thereby committed the offences.
I have heard Smt. Swetha R., the learned counsel for the applicants and Smt. Aneeda Beegum, 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. Specific overt act has been attributed against the applicants. It is true that there is delay in filing the complaint. However, it has been clearly explained in the FIS. The applicants brutally assaulted a mentally challenged boy.
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.