ORDER

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

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.751/2024 of Karinkunnam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section

318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS). 3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner, with an intention to deceive and to obtain undue gain, pledged fake gold ornaments weighing 19.900 grams for an amount of Rs.87,500/- in the Edampurathu Credits Corporation and thereby committed the offence.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. It is also submitted that the gold is accepted after inspection by the appraiser. It is also submitted that the gold is renewed twice and at that time also the appraiser checked the gold. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that allegation against the petitioner is very serious.

6. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. But fact remains that the prosecution can prove the case through oral evidence and documentary evidence available. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary.

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.”

9. 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.

10. 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:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation.

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned.

3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co- operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly