Mere Assertion of Requiring Custodial Interrogation Insufficient for Denying Pre-Arrest Bail: Kerala High Court - 2025-08-20

Custodial Interrogation Not Necessary for Dubai-Based Director in Appollo Jewels Fraud Case, Grants Pre-Arrest Bail: Kerala High Court

Ernakulam, Kerala - The Kerala High Court on Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to a Dubai-based businessman in 86 separate cases related to an alleged multi-crore investment fraud involving M/s. Appollo Jewels Kannur Pvt. Ltd. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, in a significant common order, ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the necessity of custodial interrogation for the petitioner, who has resided outside India since 2008.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Basheer, a director of M/s. Appollo Jewels, sought pre-arrest bail in a slew of cases registered by the Crime Branch (CBCID), Kozhikode. The prosecution alleges that the company and its directors lured numerous investors into depositing large sums of money with the promise of high-profit shares. However, the company allegedly defaulted on these promises, failing to return the principal amounts or pay the promised profits, leading to charges under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, and the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act, 2019.

Arguments in Court

The prosecution contended that a prima facie case was established, as the company had collected deposits without a valid license and subsequently defrauded the public of substantial amounts. As a director, the petitioner was implicated in the company's fraudulent activities.

The petitioner , represented by Adv. S. Rajeev and Adv. M.P. Priyeshkumar, countered that he has been living and running a business in Dubai since 2008, a fact supported by official exit and entry certificates from the UAE. He argued that he was not involved in the day-to-day operations of the company and was, in fact, a victim himself, having invested his own money with the expectation of returns.

Court's Rationale and Legal Principles

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas acknowledged that, prima facie, the company had committed the alleged crimes. However, the crucial question was the petitioner's direct involvement and the need for his custodial interrogation.

The Court observed, "Taking note of the nature of allegations and also the circumstance that petitioner has been residing outside India from 2008 onwards, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary."

Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory Chandigarh (2024) , the High Court emphasized that the State cannot simply assert the need for custodial interrogation. "A mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient," the judgment noted, highlighting that the State must demonstrate why such interrogation is indispensable for the investigation.

Further, the court pointed out that the prosecution could not adequately convince it of this necessity, especially since the complainant’s statement indicated that the money was handed over at the instance of another accused, Moosa Haji.

Final Decision and Conditions

Finding no compelling reason for custodial interrogation, the Court allowed all 86 bail applications. Basheer has been directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within four weeks for interrogation. Should an arrest be made, he is to be released on bail upon executing a bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties in each case.

Other conditions include cooperating with the investigation, not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and refraining from committing similar offenses while on bail. The jurisdictional court is empowered to modify these conditions if necessary.