IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
ATHIRA S – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 1852 OF 2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicants pre-arrest bail petition circumstances and detailed prosecution allegations of misappropriation (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by counsel for applicant, additional respondent and prosecution regarding grant or refusal of bail (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal principles regarding pre-arrest bail and court conclusion that investigation stage prevents grant of bail (Para 6 , 7) |
O R D E R
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.195/2026 of Chavara Police Station, Kollam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows: The accused No.2 was working as a security staff in the shop of the complainant. The applicant was the accountant. She used to discard bills typed in the computer without taking a print out and delivering to the customers. The amounts covered by the discarded bills in respect of the articles actually sold, for which money was collected were misappropriated by her and the accused No.2. The applicant used to hand over the money to the accused No.2 as if she was seeking exchange of that money for smaller denominations. She had been working in the shop for the last three years and during that period, ₹25 lakhs have been misappropriated by her and the accused No.2 and thereby committed the offences.
4. I have heard Sri. B. Mohanlal the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri. M.R. Sasith, the learned counsel for the additional respondent No.3 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, she 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 she 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 her part. There are specific allegations against the applicant in the FI Statement.
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 she 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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.