The court reaffirmed that pre-arrest bail is not granted as a matter of course, especially when serious allegations warrant 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 applicant is the accused in Crime No.1467/2025 of Nedumbassery Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 64 (1)(2)(m), 69, 305, 126(2) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act , 2000.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant and the de facto complainant developed their acquaintance through a dating app. Thereafter, the applicant invited her, who belongs to West Bengal, to Kerala. He promised to marry her. On the strength of the promise of marriage, on 22.05.2025 she was subjected to rape at the apartment situated opposite to the Federal Bank, Head Office, Aluva. Thereafter, from 23.05.2025 till 26.05.2025, she was administered with alcohol forcefully and subjected to sexual intercourse against her will at a hotel in Varkala. Further, from 06.06.2025 till 09.06.2025, she was subjected to rape against her will in a hotel at Bangalore. She was again subjected to rape from 04.08.2025 till 15.09.2025 at an apartment in Aluva. On 30.08.2025, she was taken to Aluva Shiva Temple and the applicant adorned her with Mangalsutra and Sindoor and thereby made her to believe that he married her legally. Thereafter, they lived together till 20.11.2025 in a flat owned by the applicant and entered into sexual intercourse. The applicant forwarded the nude photo of the de facto complainant to a mobile number and that was questioned by the de facto complainant. She was wrongfully confined by locking the room. He also grabbed her diamond earring and ring along with 36.6 grams of gold and also Rs.18,000/- and thus committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri. Asheek Antony, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri. M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant. 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. Specific allegations are there in the FI Statement to constitute the offence of rape after giving a false promise of marriage.

7. 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/-