The Kerala High Court has clarified that pre-arrest bail must be granted where the prosecution relies solely on the uncorroborated confession of a co-accused, with no independent evidence linking the applicant to the alleged offence. This ruling reinforces the principle that mere allegations, unsupported by material proof, cannot justify custodial interrogation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Sawad Raisin M A, is accused No. 2 in Crime No. 910/2024 registered at Chalakkudy Police Station, Thrissur. The case involves allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy under Section 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complainant, Jinson, alleged that he was induced to invest Rs. 16,86,400 in the share market through false promises of profit, made by the applicant and others.
Key Facts
- The alleged transactions occurred between 17.07.2024 and 26.07.2024
- The entire sum of Rs. 16,86,400 was transferred directly to the bank account of Accused No. 3, not the applicant
- Accused No. 3 withdrew Rs. 18,67,000 from his account and allegedly handed over the proceeds to the applicant
- The only evidence connecting the applicant to the crime is a confession statement made by Accused No. 3
- No bank records, digital communications, or witness statements implicate the applicant
- The applicant has no prior criminal record
- The applicant was not present during any transaction or communication with the complainant
Procedural History
- 17.07.2024: First alleged transaction initiated by complainant Jinson
- 26.07.2024: Last transaction recorded; FIR registered on 05.08.2024
- 12.02.2025: District Court & Sessions Court, Thrissur, rejected the applicant’s earlier bail application under Section 438 CrPC
- 16.06.2026: Present bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Kerala High Court
Relief Sought
The applicant sought pre-arrest bail to prevent arbitrary arrest, arguing that custodial interrogation is unnecessary given the absence of any direct evidence linking him to the offence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS can be granted when the sole basis for implicating the accused is the uncorroborated confession of a co-accused, with no financial, digital, or testimonial evidence connecting the applicant to the alleged crime.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The learned counsel argued that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is not linked to the transaction by any documentary or digital evidence. The prosecution’s case rests entirely on the statement of Accused No. 3, which is self-serving and uncorroborated. Citing Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the counsel emphasized that arrest cannot be automatic and custodial interrogation must be justified by necessity, not suspicion. The applicant is willing to cooperate fully with the investigation and has no incentive to flee or tamper with evidence.
For the Respondent/State
The Senior Public Prosecutor contended that the offence involves a sophisticated cyber-fraud scheme and that the applicant’s release may hamper the investigation. The prosecution argued that the confession of Accused No. 3, though uncorroborated, forms part of the chain of evidence and that the applicant’s role as a beneficiary of the proceeds justifies continued investigation under custody.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the evidence and found that the prosecution has failed to establish any direct or circumstantial link between the applicant and the alleged offence. The Court noted that while the confession of Accused No. 3 may be admissible, it cannot be the sole basis for arrest or detention without corroboration. The Court observed:
"The applicant has not received any amount, nor is there any communication or transaction trail connecting him to the complainant. The entire case against him hinges on the statement of another accused, which is inherently unreliable without independent support."
The Court further held that the applicant’s lack of criminal history, his willingness to cooperate, and the absence of any risk of evidence tampering or flight make custodial interrogation unnecessary. The Court emphasized that Section 482 BNSS empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process and that denying bail in such circumstances would amount to arbitrary detention.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted pre-arrest bail on the following conditions: (i) execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount; (ii) cooperation with investigation including deemed police custody for discovery; (iii) mandatory appearance before the investigating officer every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m.; (iv) no commission of similar offences; (v) no contact with witnesses or tampering with evidence; (vi) no departure from Kerala without court permission; and (vii) any application for modification or cancellation of bail to be filed in the jurisdictional court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Confession Alone Cannot Justify Arrest
- Practitioners must challenge arrests based solely on uncorroborated confessions of co-accused
- Courts must apply the triple test for arrest: necessity, gravity, and risk of tampering
- Absence of financial trail or digital evidence weakens the case against non-direct participants
Pre-Arrest Bail as a Safeguard Against Overreach
- Section 482 BNSS is a potent tool to prevent arbitrary detention in cases lacking prima facie evidence
- Courts should prioritize non-custodial measures where the accused has no criminal record and no motive to flee
- Conditions such as weekly reporting and no contact with witnesses are sufficient to ensure investigation integrity
Burden of Proof in Cyber Fraud Cases
- In digital fraud cases, investigators must produce transaction logs, IP addresses, device fingerprints, or communication records
- Mere allegations of benefitting from proceeds, without proof of receipt or control, are insufficient for arrest
- Prosecution must establish a direct nexus between the accused and the fraudulent act, not just association with the accused who acted
