Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
Soumesh Surendran – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 2250 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Millu Dandapani
For the Respondents: Santhan V. Nair, Aiswarya Ajayaghosh, Riya Kochumman, Arathy A.R., Bakkitha P. M., Dijil P.S., Sreeja V.
The court may grant pre-arrest bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, when custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary, particularly considering the nature of the applicant's role, the scope of alleged criminal conduct, and significant delays in reporting the incident.
Headnote:The applicant sought pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding allegations of cheating under Section 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the applicant promised employment in Poland, but instead sent the complainant to Armenia on a visiting visa, causing financial loss. The court noted that the applicant's role was confined to visa and travel facilitation and that there was a significant two-year delay in filing the complaint. The primary issue was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the seriousness of the allegations and potential interference with the investigation. The Court determined that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, emphasizing that the applicant's role appeared limited to travel facilitation and noting the delay in registering the FIR. In the result, the application for pre-arrest bail was allowed subject to specified conditions, including executing a bond, appearing before the investigating officer, and not tampering with evidence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and factual allegations regarding employment cheating. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. evaluation of custodial necessity and grounds for granting bail. (Para 4 , 5) |
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.289/2026 of Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant along with accused Nos.2 and 3, with the intention to obtain money from the first informant and others by cheating them, made a promise to the first informant that they would arrange a job for her in a supermarket in Poland and entered into an agreement. Thereafter, during the period from 25.11.2022 till 04.11.2023, they received an amount of Rs.6,32,000/- from the first informant. After receiving the said amount, instead of arranging a visa to Poland, the accused sent the first informant to Armenia on a visiting visa. While the first informant was doing cleaning work in a hotel in Armenia, the validity of the visiting visa expired. Even after the expiry of the visiting visa, the accused did not arrange a visa for the first informant to Poland and thereby committed the aforesaid offence. In a similar manner, the accused had received Rs.8,00,000/- from Anitha, Rs.6,71,000/- from Manohari, and Rs.5,10,000/- from Tibin.
4. I have heard Sri.Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel for the applicant, Adv.Santhan V. Nair, 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 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 Senior Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, 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 applicant is running a travel facilitation service.
According to him, his role is confined to visa processing, ticketing and arranging initial accommodation to persons intending to travel abroad. Annexure A2 agreement executed between the applicant, the defacto complainant and others would show that the applicant agreed to take the defacto complainant to Armenia and he received Rs.2,00,000/- for the said purpose. A reading of the FIS would show that the defacto complainant went to Armenia. According to her, she was provided only a cleaning work in a hotel at Armenia and therefore she came back on 11.07.2024. However, the complaint was filed only two years thereafter. 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:-
(i) The applicant shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may be.
(ii) The applicant shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for discovery, if any, as and when demanded.
(iii) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. He shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit any off
