IMPORTANT POINT
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; arrest must be justified and not routine.

ORDER :

1. These bail applications are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. These bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these cases by a common order.

2. The petitioner in these cases are one and the same person. He was an accused in different Crimes registered at Aranmula Police Station, Koipuram Police Station and Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. The above cases are now investigated by the Crime Branch Police. The above cases are registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable inter alia under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 5 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (for short ‘BUDS Act’).

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and the other accused cheated the defacto complainants in these cases by collecting huge amounts from them as deposits. It is alleged that neither the deposited amount nor the interest is not returned. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. It is submitted that the petitioner is the son of the Managing Director of the Company. He is settled in Singapore and he is not attending the day-to-day affairs of the Company. It is submitted that the petitioner went abroad in 2019. He has no connection with the Company. His father added him as a Director. Different contentions are raised by the petitioner stating that it is not an unregulated deposit scheme. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions imposed by this Court, if this Court grants him bail.

6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is now not in India. But the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is coming back to India on 15.04.2025 and the travel document is also produced.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner and other accused are serious. But the petitioner is only one of the Director of the Company. The Managing Director is the father of the petitioner. He was already arrested and released on bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioner can be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and after interrogation if arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioner on bail.

8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870], after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

9. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2021(5)KHC 353] considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted hereunder.

“12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. (Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ