The principle of arrest requires adherence to established judicial rulings when allegations are made, particularly when the offenses carry a maximum punishment of less than seven years.

Headnote:This judgment concerns bail applications filed amidst allegations of online fraud against petitioners under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The court determines that, while allegations persist, maximum punishments for these offences are below seven years, allowing for surrender and interrogation without immediate arrest. The principles from Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar guide the handling of arrest and bail proceedings. The ruling concludes with directives for petitioners to surrender and provisions for filing bail applications in jurisdictional courts, ensuring compliance with established judicial principles.

ORDER

These bail applications are filed by the petitioners apprehending arrest in Crime Nos.12/2024 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Pathanamthitta, 522/2024 of Harbour Police Station, Ernakulam, 419/2024 of Poochakal Police Station, Alappuzha, 401/2024 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, 108/2024 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Thrissur, 419/2024 of Poochakal Police Station, Alappuzha, 1/2024 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Pathanamthitta, 24/2024 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Alappuzha and 1123/2024 of Arthungal Police Station, Alappuzha. All these cases are registered alleging offences inter alia under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 & Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

2. The crux of the allegation is that, the petitioners committed online fraud. Different contentions are raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioners, stating that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the ingredients of the offences alleged are not attracted. I cannot decide the same in a bail application, because the investigation is going on. But these bail applications can be disposed of on a short point. The maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offences alleged against the petitioners are below seven years. If that be the case, the petitioners can surrender before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioners. In these cases, the arrest can be recorded only in exceptional cases, that also for sufficient reasons. If the arrest of the petitioners is necessary, the Investigating Officer shall strictly follow the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [2014 (8) SCC 273].

3. Therefore, these bail applications are disposed of with the following directions.

1) The petitioners will surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today.

2) If the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer as directed above, the Investigating Officer is free to interrogate the petitioners. The Investigating Officer is free to ask the petitioners to appear on consecutive days if necessary, but they shall not be arrested, till interrogation is over.

3) If the Investigating Officer feels that, the arrest is inevitable, even after interrogation, the Investigating Officer shall follow the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra) and shall produce the accused before the jurisdictional court on the date on which the arrest is recorded.

4) The petitioners are free to file bail application before the jurisdictional court at the time of producing them as directed above. If such a bail application is filed with advance copy to the prosecutor concerned, the jurisdictional court will consider that bail application in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in it preferably on the date of filing of the same itself. While deciding the bail application, the jurisdictional court shall scrupulously consider whether the Investigating Officer followed the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra).

Click Here to Read the rest of this document