The grant of pre-arrest bail under S. 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is not a matter of course; it requires a special case demonstrating that custodial interrogation is unnecessary, particularly where serious offenses involving premeditated acts and potential for witness tampering exist.

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.1436/2025 of Peroorkada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4), 336(3) and 340(2) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused, in furtherance of their common intention to obtain wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the husband of the defacto complainant, conspired together and thereafter, by creating forged documents, transferred the apartment owned by the husband of the defacto complainant on 16.09.2025, which is worth more than Rs. 4 Crores, in favour of the accused No.2 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,32,00,000/-, and thereafter, the said amount was transferred to the account of the applicant. Further, the applicant, by exploiting the mental condition of the husband of the defacto complainant, prepared a fake agreement in respect of the flat owned by the husband of the defacto complainant showing that the applicant is the owner of the said flat, thereafter gave it on rent, obtained the rental amount, and on 03.06.2002, the applicant sold 8 cents of property owned by the husband of the defacto complainant for Rs.1,10,00,000/-, obtained the said amount, cheated the husband of the defacto complainant and thereby committed the aforementioned offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Renjith B Marar, the learned counsel for the applicant, Smt.S.Majida, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and Smt.V.Sreeja, 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 Senior 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. I went through the FI Statement. Specific overt act has been attributed against the applicant in the FI Statement. Moreover, the records as well as the documents produced by the victim would show that around Rs.2,48,00,000/- (Rupees two crores forty-eight lakhs only)

was transferred from the account of the victim to the account of the applicant.

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 counsel for the defacto complainant, 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.