The court affirmed that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted when serious allegations necessitate custodial interrogation for uncovering details related to fraudulent actions.

ORDER

This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.39/2025 of Pazhayannur Police Station, Thrissur, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 3 18 (2), 319(2), 336(2), 61(2), 303(2), 305(a) r/w Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 [for short, ‘ BNS ’].

3. According to the prosecution, the third accused had, mortgaged the property of the defacto complainant and her sister without their knowledge to procure a chitty amount and the first accused took the title deeds of the defacto complainant and handed it over to the other accused and thereby all the accused together committed the offences alleged.

4. Sri. Sreenivasan R. P., the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution allegations are false and that the incident, as alleged, had not occurred. It was also submitted that the petitioner is not at all a beneficiary of the chitty account, which apparently was started in the name of the third accused, and therefore, petitioner cannot be roped in as an accused in the crime.

5. Sri. K.A. Salil Narayanan, the learned counsel for the third respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the allegations are serious and the petitioner, along with other accused, had cheated the defacto complainant.

6. Sri. Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations are serious and requires custodial interrogation. It was also submitted that the complaint of the defacto complainant specifically refers to the petitioner as the link between the third accused and the petitioner and that he is the person who procured the title deed illegally thus requiring custodial interrogation.

7. On a perusal of the complaint filed by the defacto complainant, it is noticed that the petitioner used to visit her regularly, as they are relatives. It is alleged that the petitioner had taken advantage of this relationship, managed to procure the title deed of the defacto complainant’s property. Considering the nature of the allegations, I am of the view that the circumstances indicate an attempt to defraud the defacto complainant, and that only a proper custodial interrogation would reveal the details and the modus operandi adopted by the accused.

8. In a recent decision in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh ( 2025 LiveLaw SC 598 ) the Supreme Court had observed that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order of pre-arrest bail. It was also observed that success in interrogation will elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. In fact, the court went on to hold that insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual.

9. Considering the nature of the allegations, especially since the petitioner is alleged to have procured the title deed by defrauding the defacto complainant, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail.

Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer on 05.08.2025, he shall be subjected to interrogation, and thereafter, if the petitioner is arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court without undue delay. If any application for bail is filed, the same shall also be considered in accordance with law.