Insufficient evidence and prior judicial observations warranted the granting of bail pending trial.

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking regular bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.3 in Crime No.2170/2025 of Changanassery Police Station, Kottayam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 406 , 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 21 (3) and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 . 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant being the Managing Director of Nedumparambil Nidhi Limited induced the defacto complainant to deposit amounts promising interest and thereafter cheated her without giving interest as promised or returning the amount invested and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Naveen Thomas, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

6. The applicant was formally arrested on 19.12.2025.

The investigation is almost over. In a connected crime (Crime No.889 of 2025) while dismissing the bail application moved by the applicant, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam has observed that there is no allegation that the applicant has dishonestly induced the defacto complainant's husband to invest the money in the company and there is also no allegation that the company does not have license from Reserve Bank of India to collect deposits from public. It was further found that the remand report does not prima-facie suggest that the applicant had intention to cheat the defacto complainant from the very inception. For these reasons, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required for any purpose. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. For these reasons, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required for any purpose. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions: -

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

(ii) The applicant shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. He shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

(v) The applicant shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation. (vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of the bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

APA