Anticipatory bail is granted based on the totality of circumstances, evaluating the nature of allegations and mens rea.

O R D E R

This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 in Crime No.1608/2025 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Section s 316 (2) and 318(4) r/w Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. The prosecution case, as narrated in Annexure 2 order, reads thus:

“Accused No.1 to 10, in furtherance of their common intention with fraudulent and dishonest intention to deceive the de-facto complainant, being the 2^nd accused is the Chairman, 3^rd accused is the Ladies Vice Chairman, 4^th is the Chief Executive Director and accused Nos.5 to 10 are the Directors, from 07.01.2025 onwards, by giving a false promise that if any amount deposited to the 1 accused Society namely "Fortune Agricultural and Marketing Multi-State Co-operative Society Limited", Thammanam, she can get 11.5% interest of the deposited amount. Thereby the de-facto complainant deposited Rs.5,00,000/- on 07.01.2025 and thereafter on different occasions 26.5 lakhs of rupees from the well known persons of Director Board Members, total an amount of Rs.90,00,000/- received as deposit and when the de-facto complainant demanded deposited amount after maturity, the petitioners did not return the deposited amount or its interest.” [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 have not committed any of the offences alleged against them

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioners.

7. I have gone through the Case Diary. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the circumstances in which the crime has been registered, I feel that the mens rea of the petitioners in the commission of the offences is doubtful.

8. While considering the scope of jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Gurbaksh 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