Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted when serious accusations indicate a need for custodial interrogation.

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 applicants are the accused Nos.3, 1 and 2 in Crime No.949/2025 of Alacode West Police Station, Kannur District. The offence alleged is punishable underSection 420read withSection 34IPC.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicants, who were functioning respectively as the Managing Director and Directors of the Royal Travancore Farmers Producers Company Ltd., Karuvanchal branch, induced the complainant and others to deposit money with their company by promising high rates of interest. Believing the representations made by the applicants, the complainant, his wife, and his son deposited a total sum of Rs.4,21,630/- with the said company. Even after the maturity period, the applicants failed and neglected to return the said amount, despite repeated demands. It is further submitted that the applicants similarly cheated four other persons known to the complainant, collecting in total Rs.29,18,600/-, and failed to return those deposits, thereby committing acts of cheating and criminal breach of trust.

4. I have heard Smt. Neeraja V.S., the learned counsel for the applicants and Smt. Sreeja V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 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 Public Prosecutor, 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 underSection 482ofBNSScould 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 applicant No.2, who is accused No.1, is the Managing Director and the applicant Nos. 1 and 3, who are accused Nos. 3 and 2 respectively, are the Directors of the Company. The investigation conducted so far would reveal that the applicants have received money from the complainant. But it was not repaid. The applicants are involved in seven other similar cases. Even though the learned counsel for the applicants last time submitted that the matter was settled by repaying the amount to the complainant, the instruction taken from the investigating officer would show that the amount has not been repaid and the matter has not been settled.

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 Public Prosecutor, 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 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/-