The absence of substantial evidence and the necessity of bail conditions upheld in pre-arrest bail applications.

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.5 to 8 (wrongly described as accused Nos.1 to 4 in the bail application) in Crime No.2437/2023 of Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 436 and 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused with the intention to commit mischief to the de facto complainant after making the conspiracy, on 20.10.2023 at 04:21 a.m., the accused No.1 set fire to the building owned by the accused No.5 and occupied by the de facto complainant as per the direction of the accused No.2 and it resulted in the breaking of glass door and wooden floor. The de facto complainant has been conducting a textile business as Defab Instyle. The textile items to the value of more than two crores were damaged.

Thus, the accused committed loss to the firm of the de facto complainant to the tune of Rs.2 crores.

4. I have heard Sri. M.S.Sajeev Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri. M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Sri. R.Anil, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the above crime. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to get bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicants, and if they are released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

6. The applicant No.2 is the wife and the applicant Nos.3 and 4 are daughters of applicant No.1. The applicant No.1 is the landlord and the de facto complainant is the tenant of the building in question. Admittedly, the incident took place in the early morning at 04:21 a.m. on 20.10.2023 when the building was closed. The de facto complainant and her husband also were not present at the scene of occurrence. There is no eye witness to the incident. However, CCTV visuals showed the presence of the accused Nos.1 and 2 at the scene of occurrence and the accused Nos.3 and 4 at a nearby petrol pump for purchasing petrol. According to the prosecution, the applicants engaged the remaining accused to set fire to the building. However, apart from the confession statement of the accused No.2, there is absolutely nothing on record in the investigation conducted so far to connect the applicants with the crime. Considering the allegations made against the applicants, their custodial interrogation seems unnecessary. For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicants.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(i) The applicants shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may be.

(ii) The applicants shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting themselves to the deemed police custody for discovery, if any, as and when demanded.

(iii) The applicants shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. They shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The applicants shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

(v) The applicants shall not attempt to contact any of the p