[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Pankaj Kumar vs The Station House Officer on 11 February, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2026:KER:12649
BAIL APPL. NO. 13662 OF 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 13662 OF 2025
CRIME NO.109/2025 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2025 IN CRMP NO.2508 OF
2025 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES
RELATING TO ATROCITIES & SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN &
CHILDREN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:
PANKAJ KUMAR
S/O LATE YASH PAUL, NEAR MATA MANDIR, RS PURA,
CHAK ROI, CHAKROHI, JAMMU & KASHMIR, PIN - 181102
SRI.R.S.LAKSHMAN
SRI.PRANAV KRISHNA
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROCECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA ERANAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SRI.S. RAJEEV - AMICUS CURIAE
SRI.M.C. ASHI, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:12649
BAIL APPL. NO. 13662 OF 2025 :2:
"C.R."
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS), seeking pre-
arrest bail.
2. The applicant is accused No.3 in Crime No.109/2025 of
Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram City. The
offences alleged are punishable under Sections 78(1)(ii) read with
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNS');
Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section
14 read with Section 13 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences (PoCSO) Act, 2012.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that a minor girl aged
12 years, while using her father's mobile phone, downloaded the
Snapchat application and began interacting with several users,
including one identified as "Jinhwa" (accused No.1, namely
Ishan). It is alleged that he exchanged photographs with the
victim and persuaded her to share indecent images. The victim
subsequently interacted with other Snapchat IDs such as "Korean
Boy," "Smcamilaa," and "Seo Joon," allegedly operated by other
accused, including the applicant herein.
2026:KER:12649
BAIL APPL. NO. 13662 OF 2025 3
4. The applicant is a native of Jammu and Kashmir. He
was arrested in connection with the above crime on 12.10.2025 at
Kashmir by the SHO, Cyber Crime Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram and produced before the Fast Track Court
(PoCSO Cases), Jammu. As per Annexure A4 order, he was
granted transit bail for a limited period of 15 days on condition
that he shall surrender before the investigating officer at Cyber
Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram City, within 15 days. It
was made clear that if the applicant fails to do so, the Cyber
Crime Police would be at liberty to arrest him. The said order was
passed on 13.10.2025. Thereafter, the applicant filed the above
application seeking pre-arrest bail before this Court.
5. I have heard Sri.R.S.Lakshman, the learned counsel for
the applicant, Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor
and Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this
Court to assist the Court.
6. 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,
2026:KER:12649
BAIL APPL. NO. 13662 OF 2025 :4:
he is entitled to bail. The learned counsel also submitted that the
electronic device allegedly used by the applicant was already
surrendered to the police, and hence his custodial interrogation is
not necessary.
7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the
application for pre-arrest bail is not maintainable since the
applicant was already arrested and released on transit bail. On
merits, it was submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a
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 learned Senior Public Prosecutor added that the
custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary.
8. The learned Amicus Curiae endorsed the view of the
learned Senior Public Prosecutor as to the maintainability of the
pre-arrest bail application. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted
that since the applicant was already arrested, he cannot entertain
any apprehension of arrest so as to maintain an application for
pre-arrest bail. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the
Gauhati High Court in Kamal Sabharwal v. State of Assam
and Another [2023 Supreme (Gau) 1389] in support of his
submission that the application for pre-arrest bail under Section
2026:KER:12649
BAIL APPL. NO. 13662 OF 2025 5
482 of BNSS is not maintainable once the person is already
arrested and released on transit bail.
9. Section 35 of the BNSS deals with the arrest of a
person without a warrant. Section 187(1) of BNSS says about the
production of an arrested accused before the Magistrate. Sub-
section (2) of Section 187 specifically provides that when an
accused is arrested without warrant and produced before a
Magistrate who has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for
trial and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order
the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such
jurisdiction.
10. As stated already, the applicant in this case was
arrested and produced before the Fast Track Court (PoCSO
Cases), Jammu. It appears that instead of resorting to Section
187(2) of BNSS, the learned Fast Track Judge granted transit bail
to the applicant. The grant of transit bail to someone who
apprehends arrest in another State other than the State where
the offence is committed was considered by the Supreme Court in
Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2023 KHC OnLine 6997).
It was held that when a court cannot grant pre-arrest bail in cases
2026:KER:12649
BAIL APPL. NO. 13662 OF 2025 :6:
where crimes have been registered outside its territorial
jurisdiction, the court is empowered to pass an order of transit
bail. The dictum laid down in Priya Indoria (supra) applies to a
case where a person commits an offence in one State and the FIR
is registered within the jurisdiction where the offence was
committed, but the accused resides in another State. In such a
case, the accused can approach the Court in the other State and
seek transit anticipatory bail of limited duration. It is made clear
in Priya Indoria (supra) that the accused can seek limited transit
pre-arrest bail or limited interim protection from the Court in the
State in which he resides, but in such an event, a regular or full-
fledged pre-arrest bail could be sought from the competent court
in the State in which the FIR is filed. The dictum laid down in
Priya Indoria (supra) does not apply to a case where the
accused has already been arrested.
11. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
there is nothing in the language of Section 482 of BNSS that
indicates that a person who is not in custody on account of transit
bail and apprehending re-arrest is entitled to maintain a pre-
arrest bail application. Reliance was placed on Dhanraj Aswani
v. Amar S.Mulchandani and Another [(2024) 10 SCC 336]. I
2026:KER:12649
cannot subscribe to the said contention in view of the definite
wording in Section 482(1) of the BNSS that a pre-arrest bail can
be maintained only by a person who has reason to believe that he
may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-
bailable offence.
12. Section 482(1) of the BNSS, which deals with the grant
of pre-arrest bail, reads as follows:
"482. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending
arrest.
(1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be
arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable
offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session
for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it
thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be
released on bail".
A reading of the above provision would show that a person can
maintain an application for pre-arrest bail in a case where he has
reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of
having committed a non-bailable offence. The purpose of such a
provision is to safeguard individuals from the possibility of being
arrested with malicious intent. Therefore, pre-arrest bail must be
sought before an arrest is made. In other words, a person who
2026:KER:12649
BAIL APPL. NO. 13662 OF 2025 :8:
has already been arrested cannot maintain an application for pre-
arrest bail, going by the wording of Section 482 of the BNSS. The
dictum laid down in Dhanraj Aswani (supra) is only to the effect
that where a person in custody in connection with a particular
crime apprehends arrest in a different crime, he can maintain an
application for pre-arrest bail in connection with the latter crime
while in custody in connection with the former crime. It was
further held in that decision that an accused is entitled to seek
pre-arrest bail only so long as he is not arrested in connection
with that offence. Once arrested, the only remedy for him would
be to seek regular bail; release on transit bail makes no
difference.
13. The question whether a person who was arrested and
released on transit bail by a court in another State can maintain a
pre-arrest bail application before the jurisdictional court was
considered by the High Court of Gauhati in Kamal Sabharwal
(supra). It was held that an application for pre-arrest bail under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (Section 482 of BNSS) is not maintainable
once a person is already arrested and released on transit bail. It
was further held that the only option left in such a case for the
accused is to appear before the jurisdictional court and seek
2026:KER:12649
regular bail.
14. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the
application for pre-arrest bail is not maintainable and the remedy
open to the applicant is either to surrender before the
investigating officer or to appear before the jurisdictional court
and seek regular bail. That apart, I must say that the applicant,
on merits also, cannot invoke the extraordinary discretionary
jurisdiction vested with this Court inasmuch as he has failed to
comply with the direction in Annexure A4 order.
The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. I place on
record the appreciation for the able assistance rendered by the
learned Amicus Curiae, Sri.S.Rajeev.
Sd/-Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
NP
2026:KER:12649
BAIL APPL. NO. 13662 OF 2025 :10:
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 13662 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 109
OF 2025 OF THE CYBER CRIME POLICE
STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. M.P.
NO. 2508 OF 2025, DATED 06.11.2025
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL APPLICATION
DATED 13.10.2025 PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE LD.SPECIAL COURT
(POCSO), JAMMU
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSIT BAIL ORDER
DATED 13.10.2025 PASSED BY THE LD.
SPECIAL COURT (POCSO), JAMMU
Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT FROM
SNAPCHAT WEBSITE REFLECTING THE AGE
RESTRICTION ON THE APP
Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT FROM
SNAPCHAT WEBSITE SHOWING ADDITIONAL
SAFEGUARDS FOR TEEN USERS ON
‘SNAPCHAT'
