Court required petitioners to cooperate in the investigation but granted bail, citing insufficient grounds for custodial interrogation.

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

……………………………………………………...…..

B.A. Nos. 5584 of 2025, 5585 of 2025, 5588 of 2025, 5591 of 2025 & 5650 of 2025 ……………………………………………………….….

Dated this the 29^th day of July, 2025

COMMON ORDER

These bail applications are filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioners in all these bail applications are the accused in various crimes before the Kumily Police Station. Petitioners in B.A. No. 5584 of 2025 is the accused in Crime No. 281/2025, petitioners in B.A. No. 5585 of 2025 are the accused in Crime No. 283/2025, petitioners in B.A. No. 5588 of 2025 are the accused in Crime No. 284/2025, petitioners in B.A. No. 5591 of 2025 are the accused in Crime No. 282/2025 and petitioners in B.A. No. 5650 of 2025 are the accused in Crime No. 208/2025. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 316 (2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short, ‘ BNS ’).

3. The allegation in all these crimes are almost identical. The prosecution alleges that the accused who are the trustees of a trust by name Bharath Farmers Mutual Fund Credit Trust, Kumily had collected large amounts of money from the members, promising to provide interest and return the money on demand and thereafter failed to provide the interest after a period of time and also failed to return the principal amount and thereby cheated the defacto complainants.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respective defacto complainants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Petitioners are the trustee of a Trust. The trust is alleged to have collected large amounts of money, promising interest to be paid regularly as well as to return the principal amount on demand. However, they had not provided interest or return the principal amount.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a portion of the interest was catered to, until a period of time. However, thereafter, due to the failure of various loanees to repay the loans taken by them from the Trust, the Trust could not cater to the interests as promised. It was also pointed out that 122 cases have been filed under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, for dishonour of the cheques issued by various persons who had availed loans from the Trust, and hence, the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust cannot be attracted at all.

7. The contentions raised by the petitioner though significant, since large number of depositors have not been provided with the interest as promised or even the principal amount, I am of the view that the allegations are serious. However, since the existence of an element of dishonest intention from the very beginning is doubtful, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary.

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 b