AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is the second application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking pre-arrest bail.
The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime No.551/2025 of Noolpuzha Police Station, Wayanad District. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The prosecution case, in short, is as follows: The accused persons with the intention and knowledge of cheating the defacto complainant and dishonestly obtaining money by intimidation, on 02.07.2025 at about 11:00 a.m., made a WhatsApp call to the defacto complainant's mobile number 9446516309 from mobile number 9297832457. During the call, the person who appeared in the WhatsApp screen threatened the defacto complainant by falsely stating that a case was registered against the applicant for sedition by the ATS Department Lucknow as SP case No.1928/2025. By such intimidation, the accused induced the defacto complainant and on the same day itself, he transferred money through Google Pay. Accordingly, on 02.07.2025 at 1:58 p.m., the defacto complainant transferred Rs.29,000/- to Account No.2120010119381 by G-Pay and at 6:43 p.m., transferred Rs.70,000/- to the account ID raj200479@ okhdfcbank also through G-Pay. Further, on 03.07.2025 at 11:30 a.m., the defacto complainant transferred Rs.3,00,000/- from his SBI Bank account at Sultan Bathery to Account No.161601009127. Thus, the accused persons intentionally cheated the defacto complainant and dishonestly misappropriated a total amount of Rs.3,99,000/-, thereby causing wrongful loss to the defacto complainant. Thus, the accused committed the aforementioned offences.
I have heard Sri.Vishnu G., the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.Aneeda Beegum, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
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.
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. Absolutely, no change of circumstances has been canvassed after the dismissal of the earlier bail application.
The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, 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.