The court denied pre-arrest bail citing the serious nature of allegations and risk of witness tampering during investigation.

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 No.3 in Crime No.8/2024 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act , 2000.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant with intention to obtain wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the friend of the defacto complainant, made him believe that if he joins the online trading business, he would get profit and during the period from 22.12.2023 to 27.2.2024, obtained a total sum of ₹50,61,000/- by way of six transactions through the bank account of the friend of the defacto complainant maintained in Federal Bank, Chathannoor Branch. Thereafter, the applicant neither gave profit nor returned the money to the friend of the defacto complainant and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri. Hashmi V.Z., the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Sreeja V., 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 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. In the investigation conducted so far, the involvement of the applicant is clearly revealed.

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/-