Pre-arrest bail may be granted under Section 482 BNSS where custodial interrogation is unnecessary due to weak prima facie case and no antecedents.

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.187/2026 of Gandhinagar Police Station, Kottayam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 332, 308(5)

and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNS).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that in furtherance of their common intention to commit robbery and extortion, on 20.08.2025 at about 04.00 p.m., the applicant along with accused Nos.4 to 7 criminally trespassed into the Ganapathi Bhavan House resided by the informant and her family situated at Kanyakulam in Arpookkara Village; then they threatened the informant to take all the gold ornaments and gold in the house and give it to them, failing which they would kill her husband and brother-in-law; when the informant who became scared, opened the cupboard and was giving the gold ornaments to the accused, the applicant forcibly took a bag kept in the cupboard containing gold ornaments and gold biscuits worth Rs.32,00,000/- and the accused Nos.3 to 7 left the place. Simultaneously, accused Nos.1 and 2, who were the Manager and staff of AGD Jewellery, Kayamkulam, obtained online transfer of Rs.20,000/- from the mobile phone of the informant into the G Pay account of accused No.2 and credited the amount into the account maintained by the jewellery with Federal Bank; then at the AGD Jewellery, accused Nos.1 and 2 obtained Rs.60,000/- and Rs.15,000/- from the accounts of the husband and brother-in-law of the informant by online transfer through mobile applications into the account of the second accused; then accused Nos.1 and 2 forcibly took possession of the mobile phones of the husband and brother-in- law of the informant worth Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.84,000/- and wrongfully restrained the said persons at the AGD jewellery. Thus, the applicant is alleged to have committed the above offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Renjith B. Marar, the learned Senior 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 above crime. 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. There is an inordinate delay of six months in lodging the complaint. The explanation offered is not satisfactory. The case of the applicant is that the defacto complainant’s husband and brother-in-law were engaged in a contract to supply gold ornaments to AGD Jewellery, and for that purpose, AGD Jewellery entrusted them with 24-carat gold biscuits. However, the ornaments given by the de facto complainant’s husband were of lesser purity and quality, and when he was questioned, he executed an agreement undertaking to comply with the law. Annexure A3 agreement would substantiate the said allegation. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Considering the allegations made against the applicant, his custodial interrogation seems unnecessary. For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

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