Bail is the rule and custodial interrogation must be justified; mere allegations do not necessitate arrest.

ORDER :

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

2. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.582/2024 of Malampuzha Police Station, Palakkad. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the 1^st accused is working as Honorary Secretary and later as President as well as member of Board of Directors of Malampuzha I.T.C. Employees Co-operative Sangham. It is the prosecution case that he canvassed the 1^st informant and other witnesses to invest money in the above Sangham during the period from 2014 to 2022. Due to the above, the 1^st informant and other witnesses have deposited Rs.21,76,135/- in the above Sangham. It is also submitted by the 2^nd witness that he deposited Rs.12 lakhs, the 3^rd witness deposited 3,55,000/- and the 4^th witness deposited Rs.11,75,000/- and a total amount of Rs.49,06,138/- is deposited. To the deposited amounts, receipts were issued. Initially the deposits were renewed including the interest accrued on the deposit amount and made the witnesses to believe that the functioning of the Sangham is very smooth.But, later when the witnesses approached the Sangham to withdraw the amount, the Secretary, President and Members of Board of Directors who are accused Nos.2 to 9 failed to pay the amount. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, even as per the case of the Sangham itself, the main culprit is the 1^st accused who is the former Secretary of the Sangham. According to the petitioners, the petitioners were offce bearers of the society. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that an enquiry under Section 65 of the Co-operative Society’s Act is conducted in which also it is specifically found that the 1st accused who was the Secretary of the society is responsible for the entire issues in the society. It is also submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner in BA No.6143/2024 that he was the Secretary of the society from 2012 to 2013. The allegation as per the prosecution case itself starts from 2014. The Society impleaded as an additional respondent.

6. The counsel for the victims seriously opposed the bail application. The counsel takes me through the report of the Joint Director of Co- operative Audit Department. The counsel submitted that there is clear finding in the report that there is mismanagement in the society and the petitioners are also responsible for the same.

7. The Public Prosecutor also opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor handed over the instructions submitted by the Investigating Officer.

8. This court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. This Court perused the allegations against the petitioners and also the report submitted by the Investigating Officer. A perusal of the report of the Investigating Officer would show that the petitioners and other office bearers were blindly believing the 1^st accused, who became President subsequently and without verifying the records singed the documents. That shows that the main allegation is against the 1^st accused.

9. When these bail applications came up for consideration before this Court on 05.02.2025, this Court passed the following order:

“The petitioners will surrender before the Investigating Officer on 10.02.2025. The Investigating Officer is free to interrogate the petitioners. After interrogation, the Investigating Officer will submit a report before this Court, whether the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary. The petitioners shall not be arrested till the next posting date.

Post on 14.02.2025.”

Based on the same, the petitioners appeared bef