Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; conditions for granting bail must ensure cooperation with investigation.

These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita . These bail applications are connected and therefore I am disposing of these cases by a common order.

2. The petitioner is an accused in different crimes of Town West Police Station, Thrissur. It is submitted that the cases are now transferred to Crime Branch, Thrissur investigated by the Assistant Commissioner, 'C' Branch. The offences alleged against the petitioner are inter alia under Sections 406 & 420 r/w 34 of the IPC and also under Sections 3 r/w 21 , 4 r/w 22 and 5 r/w 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act , 2019 (for short 'BUDS Act').

3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner, who is one of the director of the Heewan Nidhi Limited and Heewan Finance Limited, with intention to defraud the depositors, received huge amount from the defacto complainant and others promising to repay the amount, with interest and thereafter, cheated the defacto complainant, without repaying the amount as promised. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences.

4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. S. Sreekumar as instructed by his retaining counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The Senior Counsel submitted that several cases are registered against the petitioner with same set of facts. The petitioner was in jail for about 165 days. In several cases he was released on bail by this Court. The Senior Counsel takes me through Ext.P6 common order passed by this Court and submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail.

6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in several cases with same set of facts.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the petitioner is involved in several other cases with the same set of facts. The petitioner was released on bail in some cases under Section 483 of the BNSS . These bail applications are filed under Section 482 of the . Admittedly, the petitioner was in custody for about 165 days. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner may not be necessary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think these bail applications can be allowed on 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 has 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 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