Bail will be granted when custodial interrogation is unnecessary, considering the nature of the offences and the role of the applicant.

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 first accused in Crime No.699/2025 of Edakkara Police Station, Malappuram, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 3 16 (2) and 318(4) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [for brevity, ‘ BNS ’].

3. According to the prosecution, the accused induced the defacto complainant to deposit a total amount of Rs.35,50,000/-, and failed to repay the amount, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as 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 petitioner was the Manager of the establishment and that his custodial interrogation is necessary.

7. Petitioner, who is the first accused in the crime, is alleged to have committed the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust along with other accused. Petitioner was admittedly the Branch Manager of the establishment at Chunkathara, Malappuram. Being a Branch Manager, petitioner's role in disbursing interest or returning the amount is limited. Therefore, I am of the view that even if the allegations are found to be true, since the petitioner's role is restricted by the nature of his employment, custodial interrogation is not necessary. However, for the purpose of completing the investigation, petitioner must appear for interrogation.

8. In Sushila 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 the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation 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 hence petitioner 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

07.10.2025 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 shall also co-operate with the investigation.

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

(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Co