Pre-Arrest Bail Under BNSS | Custodial Interrogation Required For Serious Offences : Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 cannot be granted as a matter of course, particularly when serious offences are alleged and custodial interrogation is necessary. The judgment underscores that extraordinary jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly, balancing the accused's liberty against the imperatives of investigation.

Background & Facts

The Incident

The petitioner, a 27-year-old individual, was accused of obstructing a KSRTC bus driver from discharging his official duties on 6 November 2025. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner:

• Entered the bus near Pallivila Junction
• Uttered obscene words against the driver
• Assaulted the driver by fisting his chest
• Pulled the driver out of his seat, causing cancellation of the trip
• Resulted in a financial loss of ₹16,000 to KSRTC

The offences were registered under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 115(2), 121(1), and 324(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Procedural History

The case progressed through the following stages:

• 6 November 2025: FIR registered as Crime No.1087/2025 at Vattappara Police Station
• 24 November 2025: Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 3396/2025 filed before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram
• 12 December 2025: Second Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 3545/2025 filed before Sessions Court
• 31 January 2026: Pre-arrest bail application filed under Section 482 BNSS before Kerala High Court

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail, contending:

• False implication in the case
• Lack of material evidence connecting him to the crime
• Entitlement to bail as a matter of right

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits the grant of pre-arrest bail when:

1. The alleged offences are serious in nature
2. Prima facie evidence supports the accusation
3. Custodial interrogation is necessary for further investigation

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The counsel for the petitioner argued:

• The petitioner was innocent and falsely implicated
• No material evidence linked the petitioner to the crime
• Pre-arrest bail should be granted as the investigation was at a preliminary stage

For the Respondent/State

The Senior Public Prosecutor contended:

• The incident involved intentional criminal acts
• Release on bail would affect the investigation
• Custodial interrogation was necessary to prevent witness tampering
• The gravity of the offence warranted denial of bail

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the principles governing pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS, emphasizing that such relief is not automatic. The judgment highlighted:

1. Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS is an extraordinary remedy, exercisable only when a special case is made out. The Court must record reasons for granting such relief.

2. Prima Facie Evidence: The case diary revealed serious accusations with prima facie evidence, including:

   • Immediate medical examination of the complainant
   • Medical certificate supporting the assault allegation
   • Premeditated nature of the criminal act

3. Custodial Interrogation: The Court noted that the investigation was at a preliminary stage, and custodial interrogation was necessary to:

   • Uncover the full extent of the petitioner's involvement
   • Prevent potential tampering with witnesses
   • Ensure the integrity of the investigation

"The possibility of the applicant influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail."

1. Balancing Test: The Court weighed the petitioner's right to liberty against the state's interest in effective investigation, concluding that the latter prevailed in this case.

The Verdict

The Kerala High Court dismissed the pre-arrest bail application. The Court held that:

• The allegations were serious and supported by prima facie evidence
• Custodial interrogation was necessary for the investigation
• The petitioner's release could prejudice the investigation
• The case did not warrant the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS

What This Means For Similar Cases

Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not Automatic

Practitioners must recognize that Section 482 BNSS does not guarantee pre-arrest bail. Courts will deny such relief when:

• The offences are serious and premeditated
• Prima facie evidence supports the accusations
• Custodial interrogation is necessary for the investigation

Custodial Interrogation Trumps Liberty In Early Stages

• Investigation Imperatives: Courts prioritize custodial interrogation when the investigation is at a preliminary stage and witness tampering is a concern.
• Documentary Evidence: Medical reports, FIR details, and immediate complaints strengthen the prosecution's case against bail.

The Burden On The Accused

To secure pre-arrest bail, the accused must:

• Demonstrate lack of prima facie evidence
• Prove that custodial interrogation is unnecessary
• Establish that release will not prejudice the investigation
• Show special circumstances warranting extraordinary relief