Defendants' eligibility for anticipatory bail assessed, emphasizing the burden on prosecution to justify custodial interrogation, particularly when significant delays in allegations exist.

ORDER

This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.652 of 2025 of Anchal Police Station, Kollam, registered for the offence punishable under Section

420 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.

3. According to the prosecution, the accused had received an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- into his bank account on 27.10.2022 from the husband of the defacto complainant, promising an employment as a Chef in a USA-based cruise ship, however, the employment was neither obtained nor was the amount returned and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution allegations are totally false and no amount has been received by the petitioner into his account as alleged in the FIR. It was also submitted that the petitioner has no account with the Federal Bank and further that the husband of the defacto complainant is already employed in the cruise ship as a Chef. It was further submitted that even if the entire allegations are assumed to be correct, the prosecution allegations only indicate an attempt on the part of the defacto complainant to recover a time barred debt by some false allegations.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the allegations are required to be investigated and custodial interrogation is necessary.

7. On a consideration of the allegations in the FIR, it is noticed that petitioner is alleged to have collected an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- promising an employment in a cruise ship. The amount was transferred allegedly in 2022. The FIR has been registered only on 02.06.2025. Considering the entire circumstances including the long delay between the payment of the amount and the registration of the FIR, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. However, the petitioner must subject himself to interrogation for the purpose of completing the investigation.

8. InSushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [ (2020) 5 SCC 1 ], it was held that while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.

9. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory Chandigarh [2024 SCC OnLine SC 274] , it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation.

10. In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation is necessary.

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on

18.07.2025 and shall subject himself to interrogation.

(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, he shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.

(c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shal