The court established that evidence against an accused must substantiate claims for denial of bail, emphasizing the necessity of connecting evidence directly to the accused.

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.3 in Crime No.953/2025 of Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 4 06 and 420 read with Section 3 4 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’) and Section 3 read with Section 21 , Section 4 read with Section 22 , Section 5 read with Section 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act, 2019 (for short ‘BUDS Act’).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant, being the Director of the financial institutions by names Aspire Nidhi Limited and Aspire Agro Nidhi Ltd., collected a total amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/- and 179.675 sovereigns of gold from the defacto complainant on behalf of the firms by fraudulenty and dishonestly inducing them and by making them believe that the amount would be returned with high rate of interest. But, thereafter the applicant failed to comply with the terms or returned the amount or gold and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

4. I have heard Sri.D.Vimal Dev, 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 above crime. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the applicant’s intentional criminal acts, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

6. The applicant is the Director of the company. I went thought the FIS. The entire allegation is against one accused namely, Soumya Vipin, who is the accused No.2. Going by the FIS, it was the accused No.2 who induced the defaco complainant to part with the gold ornaments and cash. The allegation against the applicant is that he accompanied Soumya to collect the gold ornaments and cash from the defacto complainant. The investigation of the case is almost over. Considering the allegations made against the applicant, his custodial interrogation seems unnecessary. For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

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

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest 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 arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may be.

(ii) The applicant shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for discovery, if any, as and when demanded.

(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 bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be fi