The court highlighted the duties of the Investigating Officer regarding interrogation and potential arrest, referencing the standard set in the Arnesh Kumar case.

ORDER

This Bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.484 of 2025 of Ernakulam Central Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 r/w 34 of the IPC and also under Section 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act , 2019 (for short 'BUDS Act').

3. The prosecution case is that, the accused herein are the Managing Partners and Directors of Athira Gold and Silk, High Court Junction. It is alleged that the accused induced the defacto complainant in this case to invest money in their business. The accused assured the defacto complainant that the invested amount would yield profits. Relying on the assurance of the accused persons, the defacto complainant in this case deposited huge amount. But, the accused failed to return either the promised profit or the invested amount.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were arrested in crime No.222/2025 of Ernakulam Central Police Station. Accordingly, the petitioners were released on bail after two days. The counsel also submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation and they are ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this court grant them bail.

6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

7. The Public Prosecutor submitted that huge amount is misappropriated by the petitioners after collecting the same from the defacto complainant. There are about 23 cases registered against the petitioners as on today. Public Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary.

8. After hearing both sides, I think, there can be a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioners. The arrest can be recorded only for sufficient reasons. If the arrest of the petitioners is necessary, the Investigating Officer shall strictly follow the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [2014 (8) SCC 273] .

Therefore, this bail application is disposed of with the following directions.

1. The petitioners will surrender before the Investigating Officer within four weeks from today.

2. If the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer as directed above, the Investigating Officer is free to interrogate the petitioners. The Investigating Officer is free to ask the petitioners to appear continuously on three consecutive days, if necessary, but they shall not be arrested, till interrogation is over.

3. 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 accused before the jurisdictional court on the date on which the arrest is recorded.

4. The petitioners are free to file bail application before the jurisdictional court at the time of producing them as directed above. If such a bail application is filed with advance copy to the prosecutor concerned, the jurisdictional court will consider that bail application in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in it preferably on the date of filing of the same itself. While deciding the bail application, the jurisdictional court shall scrupulously consider whether the Investigating Officer followed the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra).