Court considers proximity between alleged crime and necessity of bail, evaluating gender and cooperation alongside the principle of anticipatory bail under specific statutory guidance.

O R D E R

This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNS S ’). 2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.28 of 2025 of Nilambur Police Station, Malappuram, registered for the offences punishable under Section s 318 (4) and 316(2) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ ’).

3. According to the prosecution, the accused had, during the period 29.05.2024 to 07.09.2024, collected an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the de facto complainant promising to provide him with an employment and thereafter failed to provide the job and refunded only an amount of Rs.50,000/- and thereby cheated the de facto complainant and committed the offences alleged.

4. I have heard Sri.Samsudin Panolan., the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Noushad K A., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused and has no involvement in the alleged crime.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that her custodial interrogation is necessary.

7. Petitioner is alleged to have cheated the de facto complainant along with the other accused by collecting large amounts of money, promising an employment. However, subsequently, though the employment was not provided, the accused returned only Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner asserts that she had transferred the amounts received from the de facto complainant to the second accused and had not obtained any benefit of the same. Even otherwise, it was submitted that since a portion of the amount has been refunded, no offence of cheating can arise.

8. Though the said contention of the petitioner is impressive, having regard to the nature of allegations, which include that the petitioner, along with other accused, have cheated various other persons, I am of the view that the said contention is a matter to be probed into during the course of investigation. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a lady and also that she had transferred to the second accused, a portion of the amount received by her, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary.

9. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 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.

10. In view of the above legal propositions as well as the circumstances arising in the case, I am of the view that the petitioner can be directed to undergo interrogation for the purpose of completing the investigation instead of her custodial interrogation.

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 04.08.2025 and shall subject himself to interrogation.

(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, she 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 shall also co-operate with the investigation.

(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall she tamper with the evidence or contact the