Pre-arrest bail requires a special case; the involvement of serious criminal acts justifies denial.

ORDER

These applications are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The applicants are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1147/2022 of Adimaly Police Station, Idukki District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 120B, 465, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicants, in furtherance of their common intention, dishonestly misappropriated the property that belonged to the defacto complainant's deceased wife, which had devolved upon the defacto complainant after her death. It is alleged that on 04.06.2020, the accused No.1 prepared a forged Will deed using stamp papers bearing Nos. BX586502 and BX586800 along with four white sheets, wherein she fraudulently affixed the forged signature of the defacto complainant's late wife, and that accused Nos.2 and 3 attested the said document as witnesses knowing it to be false. Through this fabricated deed, the accused No.1 purported to transfer in her favour the property situated in Vellathooval Village, Re-survey No.44/2, measuring 4 Are 05 Sq. metres, together with the two-storied residential building bearing No.VGP.16/465. It is further alleged that the applicants, with full knowledge of the forgery, produced the said document before the Munsiff's Court, Adimaly, with an intention to obtain a favourable decree, thereby committing offences of cheating, forgery and use of forged documents and committed the aforesaid offences.

4. I have heard Sri.C.S.Manilal, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri.K.A.Noushad, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor in B.A. No.166 of 2026 and Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor in B.A. No.193 of 2026. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutors, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the applicants' intentional criminal acts, and if they are 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 applicants is very serious in nature, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on their part. The accused No.1 is one of the legatees of the Will and accused Nos.2 and 3 are the attestors of the Will. As part of the investigation, the Will in question was sent for scientific examination and it was found that the signature of the testator found therein was not that of her. It is the applicants who have produced the original Will.

7. The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary for the investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Senior Public Prosecutors, the possibility of the applicants influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if they are released on bail. Considering the gravity of the offence and stage of the investigation, I am of the view that these are not fit cases where the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of BNSS could be invoked. The