The accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.644/2024 of the Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta, have filed these two applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners are indicted for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, and 420, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 4, read with Section 22 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (“BUDS Act”, in short).

2. BA No.4911/2024 is filed by the first accused, and BA No.4919/2024 is filed by the accused 2 to 4 in the above crime. The second accused is the wife of the first accused, and the accused 3 and 4 are the sons of the accused 1 and 2. As the bail applications arise from the same crime, they are consolidated, jointly heard and disposed of by this common order.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the first accused is the Managing Partner, and the accused 2 to 4 are the Partners of M/s.Nedumparambil Credit Syndicate, Thiruvalla. In furtherance of their common intention, the accused had dishonestly induced the de facto complainant to deposit Rs.15/- Lakh in their firm on the promise that they would pay him 12.5% interest per annum and would return the capital amount as and when requested. However, the accused failed to pay the promised interest and refused to return the capital amount. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 7.5.2024.

4. Heard; Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Seetha.S. and Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutors and Sri.Susanth Shaji, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant/intervenor.

5. The learned Senior Counsel zealously argued that the petitioners are innocent of the accusations levelled against them. In reality, the de facto complainant had, on his own volition, deposited the money in the firm and was promptly paid the agreed interest. The petitioners have not induced or compelled the de facto complainant to deposit any money in their firm. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the petitioners were precluded from returning the capital amount to the de facto complainant. Nonetheless, the firm is prepared to pay the matured deposit amount to the de facto complainant in a short time. There is no material to prove that the petitioners had the mens rea to cheat the de facto complainant when receiving the deposit, whereby none of the offences would stand attracted. The firm has the requisite licence to conduct money lending business under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. By Annexure A3 order, this Court has stayed further proceedings in another crime registered against the petitioners. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The offence alleged under the BUDS Act is bailable. The first petitioner is a renal patient and is undergoing treatment. The petitioners have been arrested in flagrant violation of the directions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr [(2014) 8 SCC 273] and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2022) 10 SCC 51]. The petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 70 days, and the final report has not been submitted. Even though the offence under Section 409 IPC is attributed against the petitioners, since the provision prescribes punishment from till the rising of the court to imprisonment for life, the maximum period for completing the investigation under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C is only 60 days. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on compulsive bail. Even otherwise, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail because the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. The petitioners are willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed