Section 482 BNSS | Grant Of Anticipatory Bail Where Custodial Interrogation Is Unnecessary Despite Allegations Of Large-Scale Financial Irregularities: Kerala High Court

Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, held that pre-arrest bail may be granted even in cases involving substantial financial allegations if custodial interrogation is not deemed essential for the investigation.

A bench of Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that when a dispute primarily stems from commercial transactions and similar prior FIRs against the accused have resulted in bail, the court must exercise its discretion to prevent unnecessary incarceration.

The applicants, accused of offences under Sections 316(2) (Criminal Breach of Trust) and 112 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), were alleged to have misused the defacto complainant's bank accounts and corporate identities for large-scale financial transactions. The prosecution contended that the accused orchestrated transactions amounting to nearly 97 crores between 2022 and 2025, leading to the freezing of various bank accounts and alleged tax evasion. The accused moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail after their initial application was rejected by the Sessions Court.

The primary question before the court was whether the nature of the alleged financial offences necessitated custodial interrogation or if the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail. The court also considered the relevance of existing criminal proceedings registered against the same accused on identical allegations in other jurisdictions.

Nature of Dispute as Commercial

The court meticulously examined the First Information Statement and determined that the genesis of the conflict lay in a commercial relationship concerning an arecanut business. The bench noted that the transition of the business dealings into alleged criminal activities did not automatically strip the applicants of their right to seek relief under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Consistency with Prior Judicial Orders

A pivotal factor in the court's reasoning was the existence of previous criminal cases against the same accused involving similar allegations. Observing that the Sessions Court, Manjeri, had already granted pre-arrest bail in connected crimes (Crime Nos. 639/2026 and 791/2026), the High Court found no compelling reason to adopt a divergent view that would result in the detention of the accused.

"The applicants were granted pre-arrest bail in those crimes by the Sessions Court, Manjeri. Considering the allegations made against the applicants, their custodial interrogation seems unnecessary."

No Requirement for Custodial Interrogation

The court underscored that the power to grant bail is discretionary and depends upon the necessity of the accused's physical presence for the progress of the investigation. By concluding that the investigation could proceed effectively without placing the applicants in police custody, the bench balanced the interests of justice with the personal liberty of the accused.

Conditions Imposed for Bail

In allowing the application, the court imposed stringent conditions to ensure the integrity of the investigation. These include the execution of a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, a mandate to appear before the investigating officer every Saturday, and a prohibition on contacting prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence.

The court explicitly noted that the applicants must cooperate fully, including submitting to "deemed police custody for discovery" if the investigating officer demands it. The order also restricts the applicants from leaving the State of Kerala without prior permission from the trial court, ensuring their availability throughout the ongoing probe.

Date of Decision: 23 September 2026