Pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS requires a compelling case; otherwise, it may be dismissed to ensure the integrity of ongoing investigations.

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 sole accused in Crime No.2034/2025 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 316 (2), 318(4), 336 (3) and 340 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. The prosecution allegation levelled against the applicant is that the applicant with intention to cheat the de facto complainant had availed a total sum of Rs.35,90,000/- stating that a landed property of one Mr. Saju Jacob shall be sold to the de facto complainant and committed offences punishable under Section 316 (2) and Section 318 (4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023.

4. I have heard Sri.R.Mahesh Menon, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri.Balram S.A., the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 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. Annexure R2(a) is the sale agreement executed between the defacto complainant and the applicant. It would show that the applicant does not have any title over the property. Admittedly, the property belonged to one Sri.Saju Jacob. A reading of Annexure R2(a) would show that the applicant made believe the defacto complainant that he had entered into an agreement with Sri.Saju Jacob. However, in the investigation it is revealed that there was no such agreement and, in fact, Sri.Saju Jacob had entered into a sale agreement with one Sri.Eldo Varghese.

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.

Sd/-