The court emphasized the discretionary nature of anticipatory bail, balancing the severity of allegations against the necessity of custodial interrogation.

O R D E R

This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’). 2. Petitioner is the fifth accused in Crime No.946 of 2025 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offences punishable under Section s 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short ‘ IPC ’). The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that, subsequently, the offence under Section 23 r/w Section 5 of the BUDS Act has been incorporated.

3. The prosecution alleges that petitioner in his capacity as an employee of ‘Southern Green Farming and Marketing Multi-State Co-operative Society Ltd.’ had, along with other accused, cheated the de facto complainant by collecting large amounts of money to the extent of of Rs.13,00,000/- promising to provide 12.5% of interest and thereafter failed to pay any interest or returned the amount and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. I have heard Sri. Mohammed Shah., 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 petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused and that he has no involvement in the alleged crime

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

7. Petitioner is concededly an employee of a Multi-State Co-

operative Society. The society had collected large amounts of money and had failed to disburse any interest or return the amount. Petitioner has been roped in as an accused as he was an employee. The offence under the BUDS Act has also been incorporated. Though the allegations are serious, considering the circumstances that the petitioner’s role in disbursing interest or return of the amount as an employee is limited, his custodial interrogation is not necessary. Though the prosecution alleges that the scheme propounded by the society for the collection of deposits is an unregulated scheme prima facie, being a Multi-State Co-operative Society, coming under the purview of serial No.8 of schedule 1 of the BUDS Act , there are materials to suggest that the scheme could be a regulated scheme.

However, that is a matter for the investigation to conclude.

8. Be that as it may, since the petitioner is admittedly an employee of society, I am of the view that petitioner can be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail on conditions.

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 the instant case, the State has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. On a consideration of the circumstances arising in the case, this Court is of the view that though the allegations are serious in nature, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and he is entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail.

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on

27.08.2025 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 R