Vishnulal P.S vs State Of Kerala

This is the second application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre-arrest bail.

The applicant is the accused No.5 (wrongly shown as accused No.7 in the Bail Application) in Crime No.475/2026 of Kattakada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 110 and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case, in short, is that, on 27/06/2026, the accused in furtherance of their common intention for assaulting and to commit homicide of the de facto complaint, to wreck vengeance against him for raising objection in consuming psychotropic drug, at the place at a distance of 200 meters towards north from Muthiyavila junction and on the road margin of Choondupalaka-Kallikkad Public road approached him and the accused No.1 uttered obscene words to his annoyance and fisted on his head. Accused Nos.2 to 7 following the same pushed his body down. When the friends of the de facto complainant named Amal, Sarath and Mahesh intervened, the accused No.1 using a chopper attempted to inflict fatal injury over his head and when warded off, sustained injury on his hand. Accused No.2 in the same transaction using a sword inflicted cut injury over the right hand of Mahesh. Accused No.3 following the same, using a chopper, inflicted cut injury over the body of Amal and the accused No.4 using an iron stick beat over his body. Accused Nos.5 to 8 together fisted over the various parts of the body of Amal and the accused No.5 beat over his back of body using an iron stick and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

I have heard Smt. Gratzia J Vettiyankal, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. Thomas Sabu Vadakekut, the learned 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 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. The investigation reveals that the applicant used a weapon and assaulted the de facto complainant. There is no change of circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail application.

The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the investigation. As rightly argued by the learned 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.