Anticipatory bail can be granted considering the nature of the allegations and the presumption of innocence, subject to conditions ensuring cooperation with the investigation.

ORDER

This is an application seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 . 2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.1097/2025 of Kannur Town Police Station, Kannur District. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The case of the petitioner is that he has received money from the defacto complainant as an investment in the Kerala Poultry Development Council. It is submitted that he had executed cheques in favour of the defacto complainant in discharge of the liability.

5. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea.

6. Concededly, cheques were issued in favour of the defacto complainant in discharge of the liability.

7. While considering the scope of jurisdiction under Section

438 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia 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 as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail.”

8. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [ (2011) 1 SCC 694 ] the Apex Court held thus:-

“113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record.”

{In Sus