IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of arrest must be justified by police based on established legal principles, ensuring it is not arbitrary.

ORDER :

These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these bail applications by a common order.

2. Petitioners are accused in different crimes of different Police Stations. The petitioner in B.A. Nos.4615/2025, 4879/2025, 4873/2025, 4580/2025, 4592/2025, 4595/2025, 4598/2025, and 4601/2025 is the accused in Crime Nos. 173/2025, 186/2025, 190/2025, 195/2025, 206/2025, 207/2025, 226/2025 and 252/2025 of Kalpetta Police Station respectively, and petitioner in B.A. No.5304/2025, 5317/205, 5307/2025, 5302/2025 is the accused in Crime No.174/2025, 180/2025, 182/2025 and 183/2025 of Mananthavady Police Station respectively.

3. The brief facts in almost all the cases are as follows:

4. There is an offer from the accused to the victims in these cases that they will provide scooter, home appliances, laptop, water tank, grocery kits etc. with 50% subsidy from CSR fund. Therefore, the victims paid huge amounts to the accused. But the assured articles were not supplied and the amount was also not returned. Therefore, these cases are registered.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail.

7. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications.

8. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, in this case, the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offences alleged are up to 7 years. Therefore, whether the arrest of the petitioners is necessary, is to be decided by the Investigating Officer in accordance with the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [2014 (8) SCC 273]. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:

“7. xxxxxxxxx

7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that all person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case, or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer, or unless such accused person is arrested, his conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.

7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes, envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 CrPC.”

9. Therefore, whether the arrest of the petitioners