Pre-arrest bail is denied due to serious allegations and risk of influencing the 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.1 in Crime No.2053/2025 of Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant, without a license issued under the Immigration Act, promised the defacto complainant that he would be arranged a work visa abroad in order to deceive the defacto complainant. Based on the promise and inducement of the applicant, the amount was deposited in the account of accused No.2 on 22/01/2024 and 29/02/2024. The defacto complainant deposited Rs.1,25,000/- in the account of accused No.2 as per the direction of the applicant. The work visa was not provided nor the amount was returned and thereby committed the offence.

4. I have heard Sri.Jagath N., 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 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 overt acts have been alleged against the applicant in the FIS. It is specifically stated that at the instance of the applicant, the defacto complainant paid money to accused No.2. That apart, the applicant has criminal antecedents. He is involved in six other crimes of similar nature.

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/-