The court highlights that pre-arrest bail is not to be granted lightly, especially when serious accusations warrant investigation and possible witness tampering.

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.2289/2025 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 318 (4) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant, along with other accused, on 18.03.2024 obtained Rs.3,20,000/- from the de facto complainant to secure job visa to Canada. Thereafter, the accused neither returned the money nor given any visa to the defacto complainant and her friend. Thus, the applicant has committed the offence.

4. I have heard Sri.N.K. Shyju, 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. Specific overt act has been alleged against the applicant in the FIS. The records would show that the applicant received Rs.2,50,000/- from the de facto complainant and Rs.75,000/- from the friend of the de facto complainant. There is no case for the applicant that he has issued any visa to the de facto complainant as promised.

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/-