Pre-arrest bail may be granted when evidence does not substantiate the necessity for custodial interrogation, especially in light of an accused's disability.

The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in Crime No.45/2024 of the Adimali Police Station, Idukki, registered against the accused (two in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The essence of the prosecution case is that: in the intervening night of 11.1.2024 and 12.1.2024, the first accused committed theft of 1200 kg of black pepper from the shop of the de facto complainant and caused him a loss of Bail Application No.1361 of 2024 Rs.7,20,000/-. During the course of the investigation, it is revealed that the first accused had sold the black pepper to the second accused/petitioner. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri.K.K Dheerendrakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Shynimole V.O, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He was originally not arrayed as an accused. The petitioner is only doing retail business in spices in the high range area of Adimali Town. The petitioner had bona fide purchased the articles from the first accused, assuming him to be a bona fide cultivator. All these years the petitioner has been buying the products from local cultivators. By no stretch of imagination can the petitioner be implicated as Bail Application No.1361 of 2024 accused in the crime. In fact, the Investigating Officer had seized all the transaction details from the possession of the petitioner on 12.2.2024. It is thereafter that Annexure-III notice under Sec.41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was served on the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present bail application.

The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. The petitioner is suffering from 80% permanent disability. The petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and co- operate with the investigation. Hence, the application may be allowed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as the second accused in the crime. During the course of the investigation, it has been unveiled that there Bail Application No.1361 of 2024 were frequent telephonic conversations between the petitioner and the first accused. On the said basis that the petitioner has been implicated in the crime. The petitioner had purchased the stolen pepper from the first accused for an amount of Rs.4,30,000/- and resold it for an amount of Rs.4,54,167/-. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary and further recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

7. A reading of Annexure-A1 FIR would substantiate that the principal allegation is attributed against the first accused for having allegedly stolen the black pepper from the property of the de facto complainant and caused the de facto complainant a loss of Rs.7,20,000/-. The materials on record substantiate that the petitioner is a dealer in spices in the high range area of Adimaly Town. Prima facie, the prosecution does not have a case that the petitioner had purchased the Bail Application No.1361 of 2024 product from the first accused knowing that it was stolen property. Furthermore, Annexure-II disability identity card issued by the Social Welfare Department substantiates that the petitioner is a person with permanent loco-motor disability to the extent of 80%. The materials on record also show that the Investigating Officer had seized the incriminating materials as against the petitioner on 12.2.202