The Kerala High Court has clarified that pre-arrest bail may be granted even in cases involving non-bailable offences when the alleged act is accidental, the accused has no criminal history, and custodial interrogation is unnecessary. This ruling reinforces the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly where investigation is nearly complete and there is no risk of evidence tampering.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Haris, aged 34, is the sole accused in Crime No. 282/2026 registered at Aloor Police Station, Thrissur. The case arises from an incident on 18.04.2026 at approximately 21:26 hours on the Mala-Kombidi road, where the petitioner, while riding an electric scooter, allegedly kicked the side mirror of a vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-07-DH5876, causing damage. The complainant filed an FIR alleging intentional damage.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred at night on a public road; no eyewitnesses other than the complainant were recorded.
- The petitioner has no prior criminal record.
- The petitioner is employed with Zomato, as evidenced by Annexure 2 (identity card).
- A photograph of the petitioner’s scooter (Annexure 3) shows visible damage, suggesting a possible collision rather than deliberate act.
- The damage was confined to a vehicle mirror; no public property was involved.
- The petitioner surrendered voluntarily before the court and has cooperated throughout.
Procedural History
- 18.04.2026: Incident occurred on Mala-Kombidi road, Thrissur.
- 19.04.2026: FIR registered at Aloor Police Station under Section 281 BNS, Section 120(j) Kerala Police Act, and Section 3(1) Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
- 02.06.2026: District Court and Sessions Court, Thrissur, rejected the petitioner’s earlier bail application (BA No. 1100/2026).
- 16.06.2026: Petitioner filed this pre-arrest bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: The learned counsel argued that the incident was accidental, not intentional. No material evidence links the petitioner to deliberate damage. The petitioner is a employed professional with no criminal antecedents. Custodial interrogation is unnecessary as the investigation is nearly complete.
For the Respondent: The Public Prosecutor contended that the act was intentional and part of a pattern of criminal conduct. Granting bail might interfere with the investigation and embolden similar acts.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail to prevent arbitrary arrest and custodial interrogation, arguing that the allegations do not warrant detention at this stage.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS can be granted in a case involving a non-bailable offence under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, where the act is alleged to be accidental, the accused has no criminal history, and custodial interrogation is unnecessary.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the principle that bail is the rule, jail the exception, as affirmed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. Counsel emphasized that the alleged act was not malicious but possibly accidental, supported by the condition of the scooter and absence of prior conduct. The investigation was nearly complete, and the petitioner’s employment and lack of criminal record demonstrated low flight risk. No evidence suggested tampering or witness intimidation.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor argued that Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act is a non-bailable offence and that intentional damage to a vehicle mirror, even if not public property, reflects criminal intent. The state contended that release on bail might discourage deterrence and allow the accused to influence the investigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the alleged offence and the evidentiary record. It noted that the offence under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act requires damage to public property, yet the incident involved a private vehicle. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish intentional damage, as the act occurred at night on a public road with no corroborative evidence.
"It appears from the record that it was a case of accident. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The investigation is almost over. Considering the allegations made against the applicant, his custodial interrogation seems unnecessary."
The Court distinguished this case from those involving deliberate vandalism or public disorder. It held that the mere invocation of a non-bailable provision does not override the principles of proportionality and necessity under Section 482 BNSS. The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is not a matter of right but a discretionary remedy to prevent abuse of process, and here, the balance tipped in favour of liberty.
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s employment and voluntary cooperation indicated reliability. No threat to investigation was demonstrated, and the conditions proposed would adequately safeguard the process.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court granted pre-arrest bail on the following conditions: (i) Execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount; (ii) Cooperation with investigation including deemed police custody for discovery; (iii) Appearance before the investigating officer every Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., and as otherwise required; (iv) No commission of similar offences; (v) No contact with witnesses or tampering with evidence; (vi) No departure from Kerala without court permission; (vii) Any application for modification or cancellation of bail to be filed in the jurisdictional court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Accidental Acts Do Not Automatically Justify Custody
- Practitioners must argue that Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act requires proof of intentional damage to public property; accidental damage to private property does not satisfy the offence.
- Absence of criminal antecedents and employment status are relevant factors in assessing flight risk and likelihood of reoffending.
- Courts must distinguish between intentional vandalism and negligent or accidental conduct when applying non-bailable provisions.
Pre-Arrest Bail Is Available Even for Non-Bailable Offences
- Section 482 BNSS empowers High Courts to grant pre-arrest bail even where the offence is non-bailable, provided the facts justify it.
- The stage of investigation is critical: if nearly complete, custodial interrogation loses its necessity.
- Conditions such as regular reporting and territorial restriction are sufficient to ensure compliance without detention.
Proportionality Must Guide Bail Decisions
- The gravity of the alleged offence must be weighed against the accused’s personal circumstances.
- Courts must avoid automatic denial of bail based solely on the label of a non-bailable offence.
- The burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate a real risk of evidence tampering or witness influence - not mere speculation.
