The court ruled that the absence of prima facie evidence and significant delay in FIR registration justified granting pre-arrest bail, emphasizing the need for timely prosecution.

ORDER

The application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (in short, ' BNSS ') for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.781/2024 of the Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta, which is registered against three accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 416 , 417, 419 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ' IPC ').

3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, to cheat the defacto complainant had assured him to secure an employment in the HDFC Bank and also offered a visa to the United Kingdom, and collected Rs.24,50,000/- during the period from May 2019 to April 2023. However, the accused failed to secure the employment and refused to return the capital. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Nobel Raju, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Sri.R.Reji, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4/defacto complainants .

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations leveled against them. There is no material to substantiate their culpability in the crime. The 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent were friends. It is during the course of their friendship that the 3rd respondent had transferred certain amounts towards their common expenses. The respondents 3 and 4 have never paid Rs.24,50,000/- to the petitioners to secure any employment. It is only after the 1st petitioner's and the 3rd respondent's relationship got strained, that the respondents 3 and 4 have filed a complaint before the jurisdictional court and the same was forwarded to the Investigating Officer, and Annexure A1 FIR was registered. The fact that the first transaction took place on 01.05.2019 and the last transaction took place on 30.09.2023, but Annexure A1 FIR is registered only on 09.07.2024 by itself proves the falsity and frivolity in the crime. There is no explanation for the in-ordinate delay in registering the FIR. The sole intention of the respondents 3 and 4 is to harass and vex the petitioners. The petitioners are law abiding citizens without any criminal antecedents. The petitioners are willing to abide any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

Hence, the application may be allowed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also stated that if the petitioners are granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it may hamper the investigation. Therefore, the application may be dismissed.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 also opposed the application. The respondents 3 and 4 have produced the bank statement of the payments made to the petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners' custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected for the proper investigation of the case. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

8. The specific case of the prosecution is that, the petitioners had induced the respondents 3 and 4 to pay them Rs.24,50,000/- between May 2019 to September 2023, on the assurance of securing a job for the 3rd respondent in the HDFC Bank and an employment visa in the United Kingdom.

9. On a careful consideration of Annexure R3(a)

bank statement produced by the 3rd respondent, prima facie, it does not reflect the transfer of Rs.24,50,000/- during the above period to the petitioners 1 and 2. Admittedly, the transactions took place between a span of more than 4½ years. It is nearly a year after the last alleged transaction that the FIR is registered. Prima facie, I do not find any plausible explanation for the delay.

10. While dealing with a similar matter, the Honourable Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory, Chandigarh [ SLP (Crl.) No.9949/2023 ],