Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; personal liberty must be prioritized unless justified otherwise.

O R D E R

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

2. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.1286/2024 of Kilimanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with 34 of IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners and the other accused collected huge amount from the defacto complainant, promising that a job would be arranged for the defacto complainant in New Zealand. It is alleged that the defacto complainant did not obtain a job, and the amount was also not returned.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are only employees of the company, in which the 3 rd accused is the owner. The petitioners have no direct involvement in this case. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that serious allegations have been made against them. However, the Public Prosecutor also submits that in the instructions given to him, there are no criminal antecedents alleged against the petitioners.

6. After hearing both sides, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners can be granted bail on stringent conditions. It seems that it is a monetary dispute, and whether an offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC is made out is a matter of investigation. I do not want to make any observation about the same. The Investigating Officer is free to investigate the matter in accordance with law.

7. 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.

8. 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 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. ( 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 cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.”

8. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2023 KHC 6961] , the Apex Court observed that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case.

9. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

i) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo inte