The court establishes the necessity of following procedural safeguards during pre-arrest bail applications and reinforces principles from established case law.

O R D E R

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

seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime No.826 of 2025 of Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant had collected Rs.61,000/- from the defacto complainant promising her to be provided with scooter on a 50% subsidy through an institution namely National Congress Community Development Initiative and assured that the articles will be supplied without delay. However, after collecting the amounts from the defacto complainant, the applicant failed to supply the scooter or return the amounts collected and thereby committed the offence alleged.

4. Heard Sri.C.Harikumar, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Smt. M.K.Pushpalatha, learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the prosecution allegations are false and that the applicant has been falsely arrayed as an accused.

6. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary.

7. The prosecution allegations are prima facie connected with certain other crimes registered against two persons by name Sri.Anandhu Krishnan and Sri.Anand Kumar. They are alleged to have promoted a scheme for supplying articles at 50% subsidy to various persons. Those two persons were under custody for a sufficiently long period of time.

8. The applicant is the person, who was allegedly inducted into the scheme by the aforesaid two persons. On the basis of the offers projected by the said Sri.Anandhu Krishnan and Sri.Anand Kumar, the applicant had collected amounts from the defacto complainant and claims to have transferred them to the above mentioned two persons. However, they in turn failed to supply the articles or return the money and, therefore, the applicant is being proceeded against by the defacto complainant.

9. In B.A.No.1877 of 2025 and connected cases a learned Single Judge of this Court had disposed of the bail applications directing the accused therein to surrender and be subjected to interrogation and thereafter the jurisdictional Court was directed to consider the bail applications in the light of the decision in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [(2014) 8 SCC 273]. Since there is no dispute that the applicant also stands on the same footing as the applicants in B.A.No.1877 of 2025 and connected cases, I am of the view that a similar order can be issued extending the benefit of that order to the applicant as well.

Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of with the following directions:

(a) The applicant shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within three weeks from today.

(b) If the applicant surrenders before the Investigating Officer as directed above, the Investigating Officer is free to interrogate him. The Investigating Officer is free to ask the applicant to appear on consecutive days if necessary, but he shall not be arrested, till interrogation is over.

(c) 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 applicant before the jurisdictional court on the date on which the arrest is recorded.

(d) The applicant is free to file bail applications before the jurisdictional court at the time of producing him as directed above. If such a bail application is filed with advance copy to the prosecutor concerned, t