Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted if serious allegations exist and custodial interrogation is needed.

ORDER

This application is filed u/s 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS '), seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime No.536 of 2024 of Mangalam Dam Police Station, Palakkad District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 333 , 309(4) , 336(2) , 336(3) , 319(1) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, on 07.06.2024, at 11:00 am, the applicant along with the remaining accused trespassed into the office of TMT Granites, Vadakkekkalam, impersonated themselves as officials from the legal department, introduced one of the accused as a retired High Court Judge, threatened the staff, grabbed mobile phone from the Manager one Anoop Mon and forcibly obtained copies of the valid documents including licence of the aforesaid company. Later, the accused who introduced himself as a retired High Court Judge, demanded Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) as bribe for not cancelling the licence of the company and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.V.A.Johnson (Varikkappallil), the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.Sangeetha Raj N.R., the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. 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, he is entitled to get bail. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

6. The law regarding the grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power u/s 482 of the BNSS could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. Perusal of the case diary reveals that the accusation made against the applicant is very serious in nature and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. The applicant in the bail application has admitted that he and the remaining accused went to the office of the TMT Granites, Vadakkekkalam and demanded licence etc. According to him, he was under the bona fide belief that he has been appointed as the investigation officer of National Public Grievance and Redressal Commission, which is an autonomous legal statutory body under the Government of India. It appears that the said body has no statutory backing and has absolutely no power to appoint any investigating officer to conduct investigation as done by them in the premises of the defacto complainant. The investigation conducted so far revealed that the accused impersonated themselves as officials from the legal department working under the Central Government using forged documents and obtained copies of the valid documents like licence pertaining to the defacto complainant's firm. The investigation further revealed that National Public Grievance and Redressal Commission, which is an NGO does not have statutory power to inspect or report irregularities regarding the functioning of the TMT Granites.

The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the applicant influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail. Considering the gravity of the offence and stage of the investigation, it is not a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court u/s 482 of the BNSS could be inv