The court denies pre-arrest bail due to serious charges and the need for custodial interrogation.

ORDER

This application is filed underSection 482of theBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking pre- arrest bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime No.719/2025 of Wadakkanchery Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that with fraudulent and dishonest intention by giving a false promise that the applicant can arrange a job of supervisor for the defacto complainant in ISRO Thiruvananthapuram, the applicant fraudulently received Rs.5,50,000/- from the defacto complainant from 11.04.2022 to 21.05.2022 by way of direct payment, google pay and bank account transfer. Further, it is alleged that, the applicant issued a forged letter to the defacto complainant to appear for medical test in connection with job in ISRO. It is also alleged that in spite of the receipt of the said amount, the applicant did not provide any job or did not return the amount and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.C.Dheeraj Rajan, the learned counsel for the applicant, Smt.Meenakshy Parvathy, 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 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. Admittedly, the applicant had received Rs.5,50,000/- from the defacto complainant. The learned counsel for the applicant relying on Annexure 2 documents submitted that those amounts have been repaid. However, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that those payments were with respect to some other transactions. That is a matter to be decided after interrogating the applicant.

Moreover, there is prima facie evidence of forging a letter.

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/-