In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr.

ORDER Dated this the 30th day of July, 2024 The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’) for an order of pre-arrest bail.

The petitioner is the 7th accused in Crime No.1564 of 2022 of the Town East Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 read with Section 21, Section 4 read with Section 22 and Section 5 read with Section 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (for short ‘the BUDS Act’). B.A.No.3533 of 2024 3

The gist of the prosecution case is that: the accused in furtherance of their common intention, to cheat the defacto complainant, induced him to invest money in the 1st accused company named ‘Thiruvithamkoor Nidhi Ltd.’, wherein the 2nd accused is the Director, the 3rd accused is the General Manager, the 4th accused is the Financial Head and other accused were the Directors, on the assurance that they will pay substantial interest. However, the 1st accused company named ‘Thiruvithamkoor Nidhi Ltd.’ failed to pay any interest or return the capital. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri. Vishnuprasad Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The petitioner was not in charge of the administration and management B.A.No.3533 of 2024 4 of the 1st accused company. The petitioner only was a Director. The petitioner was arrested in the connected cases and the investigation in respect of the company has been completed. Therefore, the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that the petitioner is a habitual offender since, he is involved in five other crimes of a similar nature in the very same police station. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary for the proper and full investigation in the crime. Eventhough, the petitioner had filed similar application before the Court of Session, Thrissur, the same has been dismissed by Annexure 2 order. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, he would hamper the B.A.No.3533 of 2024 5 investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The prosecution case against the petitioner is that, he along with the other accused had induced the defacto complainant to invest in the 1st accused company on the assurance of paying huge interest. However, the accused failed to pay the interest or return the capital. Indisputably, there are other cases registered against the petitioner where the petitioner was arrested. The petitioner was also the Director of the 1st accused company. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he was not in charge of the affairs and management of the 1st accused company. Prima facie, the materials substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the crime.

In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another [(2012) 4 SCC 379], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, an order of pre-arrest B.A.No.3533 of 2024 6 bail being an extra ordinary privilege, should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Courts has to be properly exercised, after proper application of mind, to decide whether it is a fit case to grant an order of pre-arrest bail. The court has to be prima facie satisfied that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime and his liberty is being misused.