Pre-arrest bail requires substantial evidence linking the accused to the crime; insufficient evidence justifies granting bail.

O R D E R

This 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.2 in Crime No.358/2025 of Kodenchery Police Station, Kozhikode District. The offences alleged are punishable under Section s 111 (1) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNS ') and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that while conducting patrolling on 24.05.2025 at 3:30 p.m, the police patrolling party found the accused No.1 in suspicious circumstances along with 8 ATM cards and an amount of ₹ 25,000/-. On further probe, it was found that the ATM cards belonged to accused Nos. 3 to 10. On verification of the account number of the accused No.3 in Cyber Crime Portal, it was realised that a complaint has been registered against her account in the State of Karnataka and also in the State of Telangana. Similarly, on verification of the account details of the accused No.4 in the Cyber Crime Portal, it was realised that two complaints are received against accused Nos. 3 to 10 in the State of Maharashtra and one complaint each has been received in the State of Telangana and Karnataka. Similarly, two complaints are found filed against the account of the accused No.7 in Andhra Pradesh, and one complaint is filed in Haryana. As far as the accused No. 6 is concerned, two complaints are pending in Telangana. It is also reported that the accused Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 8 have withdrawn their amounts from their bank accounts immediately on transfer of the accounts to them and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Smt.Gayathri Muraleedharan, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior 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 above crime. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the applicant's intentional criminal acts, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

6. The applicant has been implicated based on the statement of accused No.1 that ATM Cards were handed over by the applicant. Accused No.1 was granted regular bail on his production before the Magistrate. Accused Nos. 3 to 10 were already granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, Kozhikode holding that the ingredients of Section 111(1) of BNS are prima-facie not attracted against them. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as against the applicant also, the offence under Section 111(1) of is not attracted at all inasmuch as there is nothing on record to show that more than one charge sheet has been filed before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years and that such court has taken cognizance of the said offence against the applicant or any other accused. In support of her argument, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court inMuhammad Rasheed v. State of Kerala [ 2024 KLT OnLine 2089 ]. It was held that to attract an offence under Section 111 (1) of the it is imperative that a group of two or more persons indulge in any continuing unlawful activity prohibited by law, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken by any person, either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of wh