The court emphasized that granting pre-arrest bail requires careful consideration of the severity of accusations and necessity of investigation.

ORDER

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.1459/2025 of Adimaly Police Station, Idukki District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 112 and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant along with his friend, accused No.1 received money obtained through cyber frauding to their bank accounts, transferred the same and utilised it for personal benefits.

4. I have heard Sri. P.V. Elias, 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 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 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 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 under Section 482 of 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 investigation revealed that the applicant received an amount of ₹2,39,300/- into his bank account which were suspected to be proceeds of cyber fraud. The applicant withdrew the said amount using his ATM card and handed over a portion of the amount to the accused No.1. One of the victims gave statement that she transferred amount to the account of the applicant. Even though notice under Section 35 (3) of the was issued to the applicant, he did not comply with the same. 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, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of BNSS could be invoked. The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.