IMPORTANT POINT
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; personal liberty must be prioritized unless justified by serious circumstances.

ORDER :

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 is an accused in Crime No.31/2023 of Aranmula Police Station, Crime Nos.2099, 2056, 1849 & 1873/2022 of Thiruvalla Police Station & Crime Nos.1013, 1018, 1053, 1054 & 1159/2022, Crime Nos.85, 39, 116, 57, 117, 205, 78, 222, 27, 36 & 274/2023 of Koipuram Police Station. The above cases are now investigated by the Crime Branch Police. The above cases are registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC, Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (for short ‘BUDS Act’). Section 5 of the Kerala Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2013 is also alleged against the petitioner in Crime No.31/2023.

3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner and the other accused cheated the defacto complainant’s 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 noconnection 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 Directors 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 theInvestigating 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 anarrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made betw