Pre-arrest bail is denied when serious allegations and potential for interference with investigations exist.

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.518/2025 of Edathala Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution case, in short is that the applicant and the remaining accused induced the defacto complainant to part with a total sum of ₹7,37,000/- promising that they would provide a job visa to Canada and thereafter cheated the defacto complainant without arranging the visa or returning the amount.

4. I have heard Sri. Priyadarsan Thampi G., the learned counsel for the applicant 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. The records would clearly show that the applicant received ₹5 lakhs from the defacto complainant.

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/-