IMPORTANT POINT
The court stressed on following principles laid down by the Apex Court regarding bail and interrogations, ensuring rights of the accused are upheld.

 ORDER :

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

These bail applications are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime Nos.383 of 2025, 416 of 2025, 402 of 2025, 398 of 2025, 385 of 2025 and 412 of 2025, of Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur. Crime Nos.398 of 2025, 412 of 2025 and 383 of 2025 of Peramangalam Police Station are registered for the offences punishable under Section 318 (4) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, while the remaining crimes are registered under Section 420 r/w Section 3 4 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

3. The allegations in all these cases are almost identical and they are as follows: The accused had collected large amounts of money from the de facto complainants promising them to be provided with scooters and other articles on a 50% subsidy from their CSR fund and assured that the articles will be supplied without delay. However, after collecting the amounts from the de facto complainants, the accused failed to supply the scooter and other articles or return the amounts collected and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard Sri.C.Harikumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Prasanth M.P., Smt.Sreeja V. and Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutors.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution allegations are false and that the petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications and submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary.

7. The prosecution allegations are prima facie connected with certain other crimes registered against two persons by name Sri.Anandhu Krishnan and Sri.Anand Kumar. They are alleged to have promoted a scheme for supplying articles at 50% subsidy to various persons. Those two persons were under custody for a sufficiently long period of time.

8. Petitioner is the person, who was allegedly inducted into the scheme by the aforesaid two persons. On the basis of the offers projected by the said Sri.Anandhu Krishnan and Sri.Anand Kumar, petitioner had collected amounts from the de facto complainants and claims to have transferred them to the above mentioned two persons. However, they in turn failed to supply the articles or return the money and, therefore, petitioner is being proceeded against by the de facto complainants.

9. In B.A.No.1877 of 2025 and connected cases a learned Single Judge of this Court had disposed of the bail applications directing the accused therein to surrender and be subjected to interrogation and thereafter the jurisdictional Court was directed to consider the bail applications in the light of the decision in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [ 2014 (8) SCC 273 ] Since there is no dispute that petitioner also stands on the same footing as the applicants in B.A.No.1877 of 2025 and connected cases, I am of the view that a similar order can be issued extending the benefit of that order to the petitioner as well.

 Accordingly, these bail applications are disposed of with the following directions:

(a) Petitioner will surrender before the Investigating Officer within three weeks from today.

(b) If the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer as directed above, the Investigating Officer is free to interrogate him. The Investigating Officer is free to ask the petitioner to appear on consecutive days if necessary, but he shall not be arrested, till interrogation is over.

(c) If the Investigating Officer feels that the arrest is inevitable, even after interrogation, the Investigating Officer shall follow the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra) and shall produce the p