The court found that custodial interrogation of the accused was unnecessary, leading to the granting of pre-arrest bail under specific conditions.

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.988/2025 of Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 3 16 (2), 318(4) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that in order to cause wrongful loss to the defacto complainant and wrongful gain to the accused, on 10.01.2025, in furtherance of their common intention, the accused has received 8 ¼ sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to the defacto complainant by promising that she will be supplied ornaments of the same weight in a new fashion. Thereafter only 6.530 grams of gold ornaments were returned and 7.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments were misappropriated by the accused and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Sanil Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant, Smt.Stiya Sivan, the learned counsel for the additional 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 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. I went through the FIS. Admittedly, it was the accused No.1 who induced the defacto complainant to part with the gold ornaments and collected the gold ornaments from her. According to the defacto complainant, when she asked accused No.1 for the return of the gold ornaments, he said that they were pledged and assured to give it back within ten days. Thereafter, accused No.1 gave some rolled gold. After a few days, when the husband of the defacto complainant intervened, the applicant came forward and agreed to return the gold ornaments. Apart from this, the applicant has no role in the transaction. Considering the allegations made against the applicant, his custodial interrogation seems unnecessary. For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may be.

(ii) The applicant shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for discovery, if any, as and when demanded.

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. He shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

(v) The applicant shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSE