1. The applications are filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, 'BNSS'), by the accused in the below mentioned crimes of the Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta, which are all registered against them for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and Section 4 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.

2. B.A.No.5656/2024 is filed by the accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.684/2024, B.A.No.5663/2024 is filed by the accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.651/2024, B.A.No.5666/2024 is filed by the accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.678/2024, B.A.No.5667/2024 by the accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.677/2024, B.A.No.5670/2024 is filed by the accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.683/2024, B.A.No.5675/2024 is filed by the accused in Crime No.334/2024, B.A.No.5679/2024 is filed by the accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.664/2024 and B.A.No.5682/2024 is filed by the accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.657/2024, which are registered by the Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta against the petitioner for allegedly committing the above said offences. Since, the petitioners are the same in all the crimes the applications are consolidated, jointly heard and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The common case of the defacto complainants in the respective crimes is that the accused were running an establishment named 'Nedumparambil Credit Syndicate'. The accused had offered high interest on fixed deposits to the defacto complainants. Accordingly, the defacto complainants deposited money in the said establishment on the belief of getting high interest. However, the accused did not pay the interest or return the capital. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri.Jai George, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, Smt.Seetha S. and Smt. Neema T.V. the learned Senior Public Prosecutors and Sri.Susanth Shaji, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainants in some of the crimes.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations leveled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of the First Information Reports would clearly reveal that the offences attributed against the petitioners will not be attracted. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated the above offences to see that the petitioners are incarcerated. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 91 days, the investigation in the case is not complete and the final reports have not been laid. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on statutory bail. Hence, the applications may be allowed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutors seriously opposed the applications. They submitted that the petitioners have committed serious economic offences by cheating the public at large. There are numerous cases registered against the petitioners for committing similar offences. If the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of them intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the applications may be dismissed. Nonetheless, they did not dispute the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 07.05.2024, the investigation in the case is not complete and the final report has not been laid.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainants also opposed the applications. He submitted that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of them intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the applications may be dismissed.

8. The common prosecution case in all the crimes is that the petitioners had induced the defacto complainants to deposit money in their establishment on the assurance of paying them high interest. However, the accused failed to pay the interest or return the capital. The fact remains that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 07.05.2024, which is more than 90 days, the investigation in the case is not complete and the final reports have not been laid.

9. Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows:

167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.—(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of  twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate. (2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that— 2 [(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding— (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;]

10. A three-Judge Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra [(2001) 5 SCC 453], reiterated the legal proposition in Sanjay Dutt v.State through C.B.I., Bombay (supra). In paragraph 13 (3) it was opined thus:

"13. x x x x x x (3) On the expiry of the said period of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused for being released on bail on account of default by the investigating agency in the completion of the investigation within the period prescribed and the accused is entitled to be released on bail, if he is prepared to and furnishes the bail as directed by the Magistrate.” (emphasis added)

11. In the instant cases, as the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 91 days, the investigation in the cases is not complete and the final reports have not been laid, I am convinced that the petitioners are entitled to be released on compulsory bail, since it is their indefeasible right under Section 167(2) of the Code. Hence, I allow the applications.

12. In the result, the applications are allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

i. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final reports are laid. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

ii. The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

iii. The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail;

iv. The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the jurisdictional court at the time of execution of the bond in the respective crimes. If they have no passports, they shall file affidavits to the effect before the jurisdictional court on the date of execution of the bond;

v. In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the applications for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

vi. The petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta without the previous permission of the jurisdictional court.

vii. Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.

viii. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663]