The court affirms that pre-arrest bail is not granted as a matter of course, especially when the allegations are serious and investigations are ongoing.

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 in Crime No.43/2025 of Poochakkal Police Station, Alappuzha District. The offence alleged is punishable underSection 380of the IPC (Section 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant committed theft of 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.30,000/- belonging to the defacto complainant and her daughter between 23.10.2022 and 16.11.2024 and thereby committed the offence.

4. I have heard Smt.T.T.Shaniba, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.K.A.Noushad, 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, she 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 she 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 her part.

7. The defacto complainant is the mother-in-law of the applicant. The applicant, along with the daughter of the defacto complainant, was residing together in the house of the defacto complainant. The stolen gold ornaments were kept in the house of the defacto complainant. During the initial stage of investigation, the applicant took a stand that she is totally innocent. However, during investigation, on verification of the bank accounts, it was revealed that during the alleged period of theft, about Rs.5,00,000/- was transferred to the account of the applicant by one Mr.Vishnu. When Mr.Vishnu was questioned, he stated that the applicant had handed over some gold ornaments to him for sale and that he sold the same in a Jewellery and the sale proceeds were transferred by him to the account of the applicant. The applicant has taken a stand that she sold her own gold ornaments through Mr.Vishnu. The question as to whether the amount credited to the account of the applicant is the proceeds of the sale of her own gold ornaments or the stolen gold ornaments can be revealed only by subjecting the applicant to custodial interrogation.

The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the applicant influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if she 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.