Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; justification for arrest must be established, especially in financial misconduct cases.

ORDER :

(P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.)

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

2. Petitioner in these cases are one and the same. Petitioner was the former President of Iritty Marketing and Agricultural Co-operative Society (for short Society). Crime Nos.670/2024, 671/2024, 672/2024, 673/2024 and 674/2024 is registered by the Aralam Police, against the petitioner and others alleging offences interalia under Sections 318(4), 316(5) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

3. The prosecution case is that, the defacto complainant in these cases, deposited a huge amount in the Society, in which the accused offered huge interest. But, the deposited amount is not disbursed and the interest also is not received. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. In two other cases, there is allegation to the effect that the defcato complainants were forced to deposit the amount offering job to their relatives.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, it is an admitted fact that, defacto complainants deposited amount in the Society. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Society is facing some financial difficulty and because of the same, the amount is not disbursed. The counsel submitted that, now the petitioner is not the President. The counsel submitted that, there is no allegation to the prosecution that petitioner misappropriated the amount deposited in the Society. As far as the job offer from the accused, it is submitted that the relatives of the defacto complainants in those cases were already joined in the service.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submitted that huge amount is deposited by the depositors relying the words of the accused that he will pay huge interest. The job offered was temporary in nature.

7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The amount is deposited in a Co-operative Society. It is an admitted fact that the amount is deposited by the defacto complainant as Fixed Deposits. It is also an admitted fact that the amount deposited is not disbursed to the defacto complainants. In such circumstances, the normal remedy of the defacto complainant is to file an Arbitration case as per the Co- operative Societies Act. Whether any criminal offence is made out, in such circumstances, is a matter to be investigated. I do not want to make any observation about the same. The petitioner is the former President of the Society. He is aged 60 years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer. After interrogation, if arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to the Investigating Officer to release the petitioner on bail after imposing stringent conditions,

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