The presumption of innocence is fundamental, and bail should not be denied as punishment when a case for bail is made.

ORDER

The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 1050/2025 registered by the Kannur Town Police Station, Kannur, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 316 (2), 318(4) and 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 . The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.01.2026.

2. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that:

The first petitioner was appointed as a Chief Executive Officer of a group of business establishments named “Sheri or Sherry brand," which is owned by the second respondent (defacto complainant) and his wife. The second petitioner, who is the husband of the first petitioner, was engaged in the managerial and supervisorial role on a commission basis. During the period from 01.08.2024 to 18.08.2025, the petitioners had, to make unlawful gain for themselves and to make unlawful loss to the second respondent, misappropriated Rs.1,40,00,000/- from the business establishments. Thus, the petitioners have committed the above offences.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned counsel for the second respondent (intervenor).

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the crime. In fact, the first petitioner was diligently looking after the business of the intervenor. The intervenor had executed a power of attorney in favour of the first petitioner. Subsequently, the intervenor compelled the petitioners and other employees of the establishment to permit him to use their personal accounts for looting foreign remittance on his behalf. Consequently, the money was transferred from various financial institutions to the bank accounts of the petitioners and the other employees, which is evidenced by Annexure A7 bank statements. When the benami transactions became a routine affair, the employees started raising resistance against the said transfer. Ultimately, this led to a unrest in the establishment, and the employees went on a strike. Immediately, the employees were illegally terminated, and they lodged a complaint before the Labour Officer. The first petitioner also filed Annexure A9 complaint before the Cyber Crime Police Station, Kannur. As a retaliatory measure to the said complaint, the intervenor has filed the present crime. Even though the petitioners had approached this Court and filed an application for pre-arrest bail, the same was dismissed. Immediately, the petitioners surrendered before the Investigating Officer on 12.01.2026. The petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last one month. By Annnexure A13 statement filed by the Investigating Officer before the jurisdictional Magistrate, he has empathetically stated that the petitioners have cooperated with the investigation and the investigation is practically complete. In light of the above statement, the petitioners' further detention is unnecessary. They are ready and willing to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the intervenor, in unison, vehemently oppose the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners are not cooperating with the investigation. There are documents money to be recov