Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; custodial interrogation is not necessary if the accused cooperates with the investigation.

ORDER

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

2. Petitioners are the accused Nos.7 & 8 in Crime No.172/2024 of Eravipuram Police Station. The above cases are registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420 & 465 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. The prosecution case is that; the petitioners, who are the OfÏcials of the Bank of Mayyanad Service Co-operative Society Bank, colluded with the other accused and it is alleged that, first accused with the assistance of the second accused created a false documents and presented the same before the Bank and managed to obtain the loan. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners were the Secretary of the Bank long back. The allegations against the petitioners are not correct. The petitioners were only doing their duty. He also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grants them bail.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submitted that, the petitioners were the Secretary at the relevant time.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. This Court rejected the bail application of the first and second accused, who are the main accused in these cases and they were directed to surrender before the Investigating OfÏcer. As far as the petitioners are concerned, they are OfÏcials of the Bank. The main allegation against the petitioners is that the value of the property is not properly assessed by them while sanctioning loan. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not necessary. Petitioners can be released 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 has7. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also. 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 bec7. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also.omes 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.7. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also. (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