Pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS is not granted as a matter of course, particularly in serious allegations requiring custodial 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 applicants are the accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No.1139/2025 of Thalassery Police Station, Kannur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 316 (5) and 318(4) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicants along with the remaining accused, induced the defacto complainant by falsely promising to arrange a mammoth loan of ₹70 crores for the purchase of an estate. It is further alleged that under this pretext, they collected a sum of ₹1,42,30,000/- as processing fee between 15.5.2025 and 23.6.2025, thereafter, they neither arranged the loan nor returned the processing fee and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri. V.S. Salim, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri.D. Arun Bose, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and Smt. Sreeja V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the applicants' intentional criminal acts, and if they are 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 applicants is very serious in nature, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on their part. Specific over acts have been attributed against both the applicants in the FI statement.

7. According to the applicants, the defacto complainant had availed loan of ₹1,50,00,000/- from the accused No.4 executing promissory note. They further contended that the defacto complainant availed another interest free loan of ₹29,50,000/-. But he failed to repay the same. Then on repeated demand, the defacto complainant agreed to repay the loan on condition of granting another loan of ₹1,50,00,000/-. Accordingly, the accused No.4 gave another loan of ₹1,50,00,000/- to the defacto complainant and he repaid ₹1,42,30,000/- towards the first loan. It is their case that the said amount has been said to be collected by the applicants from the defacto complainant as processing fee. It is further contended that the cheques issued by the defacto complainant were dishonoured by the bank and the accused No.4 has approached the civil court and instituted a suit and in order to escape from the said liability, the defacto complainant got the above crime registered. The definite case of the defacto complainant is that the accused have managed to obtain several documents signed by him which includes the promissory note and by misusing the same, the civil suit has been filed. The investigation reveals that, from the account of the defacto complainant, a sum of ₹14,50,000/- was transferred to the account of the accused No.3/applicant No.2 and a sum of ₹2,00,000/- was transferred to the account of his wife. Similarly, amount was transferred to the account of the accused No.2/applicant No.1 as well.

The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary for the investigation. As rightly