The court reinforced that anticipatory bail deliberation should balance the seriousness of allegations with principles of justice and public safety.

ORDER

This is an application seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

2. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.1018/2025 of the Kalamassery Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC r/w Section 34 and Section 316 (2) and 318(4) r/w Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, as narrated in Annexure -A3, reads thus:-

“The first accused is the Chairman, second accused is the Vice Chairman and third accused is the Manager of Agri Tourism Multi State Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as ATCOS) functioning at Pathadipalam in Edappally Village. The accused promised the defacto complainant that if he deposit amount in the ATCOS, he will receive huge interest and accordingly received ₹25,00,000/- on 19.04.2024, Rs.35 lakhs from the SBI account of the wife of the defacto complainant on 18.04.2024 and received Rs. 40 lakhs by RTGS transfer from the account of the daughter of the defacto complainant. Thus, the accused have received a total amount of Rs. One crore as deposit. They had repaid only 10,00,000/-. They neither paid the remaining principal amount nor the interest to the defacto complainant.(Sic)”

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the allegations levelled against them and they have been falsely implicated in the crime.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea.

7. While considering the scope of jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court inGurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab [ (1980) 2 SCC 565 ] held thus:

“31. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail.

The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and “the larger interests of the public or the State” are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh [ AIR 1962 SC 253 : (1962) 3 SCR 622 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 216] , which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society