Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; personal liberty must be prioritized unless custodial interrogation is justified.

ORDER :

These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. The petitioner is an accused in different crimes of Chingavanam Police Station. The above cases are registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs.406 & 420 IPC and also under Sec.21 & 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 ( for short 'BUDS Act').

3. The prosecution case in brief in all these cases is that the accused with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the defacto complainant in these cases and to make wrongful gain to themselves made the defacto complainant to believe that high interest will be given, if money is invested in the firm M/s. Kelamangalam Financiers and Investors situated at Pannimattom owned by the 1^st accused and believing the same, the defacto complainant in her own name and in the names of her relatives, deposited huge amount and the said amount did not return and interest is also not paid. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as a Senior Manager Audit & Inspection Section, Head Office, Kerala Bank, Thiruvananthapuram. She is in no way connected with M/s. Kelamangalam Financiers and Investors, Pannimattom. It is also submitted that, the petitioner is the wife of the 1^st accused. Therefore, she is implicated as an accused. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants her bail. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the 1^st accused. She is the wife of the 1^st accused. She is a lady. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions. The petitioner shall surrender her passport before the investigating officer, at the time of surrender. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays at 10.00 am for a period of one month and thereafter, as and when required.

7. 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.

8. 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 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.”

9. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Inve