Kerala High Court
Subin K.S vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
BA No.1672/2026
2026:KER:32210
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1948
BAIL APPL. NO. 1672 OF 2026
CRIME NO.719/2025 OF Wadakkanchery Police Station, Thrissur
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
SUBIN K.S
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O SUNIL KUMAR, RESIDING AT KANNANCHERRY HOUSE,
MULANGUNNATHKAVU DESOM,
THRISSUR, DISTRICT, PIN - 680581
BY ADVS. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
SHRI.AJIN DEV S.S.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE
OFFICER, WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 682031
SRI.M.C. ASHI, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
7.04.2026, THE COURT ON 10.04.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA No.1672/2026
2026:KER:32210
-:2:-
O R D E R
This is the second application for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused No.1 in Crime No.719/2025 of Wadakkanchery Police Station, Thrissur under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS).
2. The applicant is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case in short is that with fraudulent and dishonest intention by giving a false promise that the applicant can arrange a job of supervisor for the de facto complainant in ISRO, Thiruvananthapuram, the applicant fraudulently received Rs.5,50,000/- from the de facto complainant from 11/04/2022 to 21/5/2022 by way of direct payment, google pay and bank account transfer. Further, it is alleged that the applicant issued a forged letter to the de facto complainant to appear for medical test in connection with the job in ISRO. It is BA No.1672/2026 2026:KER:32210 -:3:- also alleged that in spite of the receipt of the said amount, the applicant did not provide any job or did not return the amount and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
4. I have heard Sri.Sajith Kumar V., the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The learned counsel relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Babu Singh and Others v. State of U.P. [(1978) 1 SCC 579] and that of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Imratlal Vishwakarma and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1996 SCC OnLine MP 59) submitted that there is no bar for an accused to make successive application for pre-arrest bail on separate grounds. The learned counsel further submitted that certain vital documents which would prove the innocence of the applicant could not be produced at the time of consideration of the first bail application.
6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public BA No.1672/2026 2026:KER:32210 -:4:- Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal act of the applicant, and if he is released on bail, it will affect the course of the investigation. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the applicant has not pleaded or established any change in circumstances of the case since the dismissal of the first bail application filed by him. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor also submitted that, in the earlier proceedings, all the points available to the applicant have been urged and negatived by this court. In the absence of any change in fact situation or in law after the dismissal of the first application, the second application is not maintainable, submitted the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
7. The law regarding the grant of pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. Grant of pre-arrest bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence, and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. The extraordinary power of the High Court and BA No.1672/2026 2026:KER:32210 -:5:- the Court of Session to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS could be exercised with a significant amount of prudence, care, and caution and only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. While exercising powers under Section 482, the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the investigational right of the police.
8. The order granting or refusing to grant a pre-arrest bail application is a final order, and the entertainment of a second application essentially leads to a review of the earlier order. However, a second or subsequent application for pre-arrest bail is not completely barred. It cannot be entertained in routine as well. An accused must establish the change in the circumstances sufficient to persuade the court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to maintain the application for pre-arrest bail for the second time. A material change in fact situation or law is sine qua non for a second application for pre-arrest bail. The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav [(2005 (2) KLT SN 4 (C.No. 3) SC =AIR 2005 SC 921] considered BA No.1672/2026 2026:KER:32210 -:6:- the legality and propriety of successive bail applications. It was held in paragraph 20 thus:
"Even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application."
Following the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra), this Court, in Vineeth v. State of Kerala (2015 (5) KHC 224), held that successive bail applications without showing any change in the fact situation or circumstance requiring the invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court or the Court of Session under S.438 of Cr.P.C. (Section 482 of BNSS) can only be regarded as an abuse of the process of the court. The Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Sudip Sen v. State of W.B. (2010 Cri. L.J. 4628), after reiterating the principle that there is no general bar or impediment in moving a second application for pre-arrest bail, held that a person will be entitled to move the High Court or the Court of Session for the second BA No.1672/2026 2026:KER:32210 -:7:- time only on the ground of substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case due to subsequent events. It was clarified that the accused would not be entitled to move the second application on the ground that the Court, on earlier occasion, failed to consider any particular aspect or material on record or that any point then available to him was not agitated before the Court. The Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Ganesh Raj v. State of Rajasthan [2006 (1) KLT SN 15 (C.No.25) Raj.(F.B.)] took the view that second or subsequent application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (Section 482 of BNSS) can be filed if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which require the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. A Single Bench of this Court in Muhammed Ziyad v. State of Kerala & Another (2015 (4) KLJ 22) deprecated filing successive bail applications without legal justification. Another Single Bench of this Court in Pandi v. State of Kerala (2018 (4) KLT 249) held that subsequent application for pre-arrest bail on the same grounds without any change in circumstances is liable to be rejected even summarily.
BA No.1672/2026
2026:KER:32210 -:8:-
9. Thus, even though there is no absolute embargo in filing the subsequent application for pre-arrest bail, it can be entertained only if there is a substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case, which requires the earlier view be interfered with or where, the earlier finding has become obsolete. Ordinarily, the grounds canvassed in the earlier application cannot be permitted to be reurged in the subsequent application. Nor could the accused in the subsequent application contend that the Court, while considering the earlier bail application, failed to advert to any fact or material on record. A fact which was not in existence at the time of considering the earlier bail application but came into existence subsequently alone could be considered a change in facts and circumstances [See Suresh v. State of Kerala (2023 (4) KLT 696)].
10. Coming to the facts of the case, the first bail application was rejected by this court taking into account the gravity of the offence, the complicity of the applicant in the crime, the stage of investigation and the requirement of the applicant for custodial interrogation. This court on perusal of the BA No.1672/2026 2026:KER:32210 -:9:- entire case diary and after hearing the submission of both sides, found that the accusation made against the applicant is very serious in nature and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. There is no change in any of these circumstances.
11. The applicant has produced Annexures K, F and J documents. Annexure K is an agreement entered into between the de facto complainant and the applicant settling the dispute between them at the police station. Annexure F is a copy of the bank statement evidencing payment of Rs.1,94,000/- to the applicant by the de facto complainant in 2024. Annexure J is the copy of the Google pay receipt dated 30/11/2025 evidencing the transfer of money from the de facto complainant to the applicant. According to the applicant, these documents would establish change in circumstances justifying a second application for pre- arrest bail. The applicant has no case that those documents were not in existence at the time of the consideration of the earlier bail application. Therefore, the production of those documents along with this bail application cannot be termed as a change in fact BA No.1672/2026 2026:KER:32210 -:10:- situation or a change in circumstance so as to justify the filing of the second application for pre-arrest bail. Admittedly, the applicant had received Rs.5,50,000/- from the de facto complainant. According to the applicant, those amounts were repaid, which is disputed by the de facto complainant. Moreover, there is prima facie evidence of forging a letter.
The applicant has not made out a case to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of the BNSS for the second time. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp BA No.1672/2026 2026:KER:32210 -:11:- APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 1672 OF 2026 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF FIR NO. 719/2025 OF WADAKANCHERRY POLICE STATION DATED 16.09.2025 Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 02.02.2022 ISSUED TO THIS PETITIONER Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 02.02.2022 ISSUED TO THIS DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT Annexure D A TRUE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER IN THE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED AT ICICI BANK FOR THE PERIOD FROM 10.12.2021 TO 24.06.2022 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENTS TO RAMSI FROM PETITIONER Annexure E A TRUE COPY OF THE R.C BOOK OF INNOVA CAR OWNED BY PETITIONER Annexure F A TRUE COPY THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER IN THE ACCOUNT AT FEDERAL BANK FOR PERIOD FROM 31.10.2024 TO 21.11.2024 EVIDENCING THE TRANSACTION OF RS.1,94,000 FROM AKHIL TO THE PETITIONER Annexure G A TRUE COPY OF G-PAY RECEIPT INDICATING PAYMENT FROM MR. PRADEEP KUMAR Annexure H THE TRUE COPIES OF THE G-PAY RECEIPT DATED 1/2/2025 Annexure I THE TRUE COPIES OF 21/04/25 EVIDENCING THE TRANSACTIONS FROM THE PETITIONER TO MUHAMMED AJMAL Annexure J A TRUE COPY OF THE GOOGLE PAY RECEIPT DATED 30.11.2025 EVIDENCING THE TRANSFER OF MONEY FROM DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT TO THIS PETITIONER BA No.1672/2026 2026:KER:32210 -:12:- Annexure K A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF PETITION REGISTER OF MEDICAL COLLEGE, THRISSUR POLICE STATION ISSUED AS PER LETTER DATED 03.03.2026 UNDER RTI ACT Annexure L A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.11.2025 OF DISTRICT COURT IN CRL.MC 1774/2025 Annexure M A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2026 IN BAIL APPLICATION 13741/2025 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT