ORDER : 1. Crl. Pet. No. 101927/2019 is filed by petitioners/accused No. 6 and 32 and Crl. Pet. No. 101934/2019 is filed by petitioner/accused No. 7 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No. 83/2019 of Chikkodi Police Station (PCR No. 238/2019 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Chikkodi) for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 465, 467, 420, 415, 417, 471, 477-A, 470 read with Section 149 of IPC. 2. The facts leading to these petitions are that a private complaint was filed by the Regional Manager, The Karnataka State Souharda Federal Cooperative Ltd. Bengaluru, having its region at Belagavi region, before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkodi. On the basis of the said complaint, learned Magistrate has referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In pursuance of the said order, the respondent-Police have registered the case and have taken up for investigation. The petitioners/accused No. 6 and 32 were arrested on 6.7.2019 and the accused No. 7 was arrested on 6.9.2019. Since then they are in judicial custody. The bail applications filed by them before the Sessions Court were rejected. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions and learned HCGP for the respondent-State, perused the prosecution records available at this Stage. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the private complaint was filed on false grounds and alleging financial irregularities without there being any complaint by the general public or the persons who have got transactions with the Society. These petitioners/accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case without there being any prima-facie case. In the event of further detention, the petitioners/accused will be put to great hardship and injustice. They are ready and willing to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court while granting bail. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP submitted that accused Nos. 6, 7 and 32 and some of other accused who were the Directors, office bearers and officials of the Society have committed financial irregularities by misusing funds collected from the public and depositors. Thus, there are no valid grounds for granting bail. 6. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP submitted that accused Nos. 6, 7 and 32 and some of other accused who were the Directors, office bearers and officials of the Society have committed financial irregularities by misusing funds collected from the public and depositors. Thus, there are no valid grounds for granting bail. 6. As could be seen from the complaint averments made in the private complaint, the allegations are as under: (a) Accused No. 6, Directors and other office bearers have registered the said Society with an ulterior motive to collect the deposits from the members and customers and make use of the said funds for their personal gains. (b) Accused No. 6 being founder Chairman and accused No. 32 being CEO of the Society have committed serious irregularities. Appointment of CEO and AGM was done without approval from the Federation. (c) Board of Directors, CEO and AGM with criminal intention to dupe the members/customers of the Society have collected the huge amount of Rs. 81,61,94,637.80 paise and in order to escape from their liabilities, have got appointed the Accused No. 38 to 48 to take over the management of the Society. (d) Under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakara Act, 1997, transactions shall have to be done only with the members, but the Branch Managers and CEO have collected the money from the public and utilized the said amount for their personal purposes. (e) Reserve Fund, craves out of the yearly profits i.e. 25% of the total profits per year has been misutilized by some of the directors and office bearers instead of depositing the said amount either in DCC Bank, Scheduled or Nationalized Bank. (f) Some of the accused persons have advanced the loans without taking appropriate securities, without documents and without following any due procedure of law and in violation of the Rules and Regulations of KSS Act. (g) Accused No. 6 and 32 have managed to take hefty commissions for advancement of the loans and have got amassed wealth. (h) Some of the excess amounts of the investments have been deposited with few banks where their relatives have got nexus. (i) As per report of Chartered Accountant, Rs. 5,85,61,124/- was advanced which is in excess as per limits stipulated. (j) There are no official records for retaining the accounts and the accused have siphoned off the amounts for their illegal purposes. (k) Rs. (i) As per report of Chartered Accountant, Rs. 5,85,61,124/- was advanced which is in excess as per limits stipulated. (j) There are no official records for retaining the accounts and the accused have siphoned off the amounts for their illegal purposes. (k) Rs. 4 Crores have been retained as deposits and have made only the paper adjustments. (l) Report of the Inspecting officer discloses that loan amounts were advanced in an unscientific way without taking appropriate securities and have also invested the entire amounts of the reserved fund in working capital of Souharda Sahakari and invested the amounts in unsecured loans, thereby they have committed criminal breach of trust. (m) No legal action initiated against closes aids of the office bearers of the accused who have borrowed the huge amounts. 7. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners have furnished some of the documents i.e. Audit reports, Borrowers’ list, recovery proceedings initiated against the borrowers who have committed default and records pertaining to the loan transaction on the security of mortgaged property. Relying on these documents, learned counsel submitted that there are no financial irregularities whatsoever and these accused have not at all involved in any fraudulent acts. 8. One of the documents produced by the counsel for the petitioners is the audit report submitted by the Chartered Accountant, wherein it is stated that the percentage of profit has come down compared to the previous year. The suggestions made by the Chartered Accountant are that, the Society has not taken decision despite some of the borrowers have committed default in repayment. Some other lapses are also pointed out. But as far as allegations regarding the financial irregularities are concerned, the learned HCGP has tried to point out that some of the borrowers have availed the loan 5 or 6 times by pledging or offering the security of same property in collusion with the some of the accused. Some of the borrowers have taken loan to an extent of crores, without offering sufficient security. No doubt, these allegations are in respect of some other irregularities said to have been committed. It is pertinent to note that the general public or depositors or the members of the society have not raised any objections or made any complaints. At this stage, it is needless to make elaborate discussions as the same is not permissible while considering the bail application. It is pertinent to note that the general public or depositors or the members of the society have not raised any objections or made any complaints. At this stage, it is needless to make elaborate discussions as the same is not permissible while considering the bail application. 9. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , has held that the freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his guilt has not been proved. It is held in the said case as under: “A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.” 10. The object of the bail is to secure the accused persons at the trial at reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered as punishment unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand to trial when called upon. 11. In the instant case, the accused are in judicial custody from the date of their arrest. At this stage, no grounds are made out to show that their presence is necessary for custodial interrogation. The main objection of the prosecution is that, in the event of granting bail, the petitioners/accused are likely to interfere with the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses. The said objections may be set right by imposing stringent conditions. 12. At this stage, no grounds are made out to show that their presence is necessary for custodial interrogation. The main objection of the prosecution is that, in the event of granting bail, the petitioners/accused are likely to interfere with the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses. The said objections may be set right by imposing stringent conditions. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds to grant bail to the petitioners subject to certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition Nos. 101927/2019 and 101934/2019 filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed. Consequently, the petitioners/accused Nos. 6, 32 and 7 shall be released on bail in connection with Chikkodi Police Station Crime No. 83/2019 and Private Complaint No. 238/2019 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkodi, subject to following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court/Committal Court. (ii) The petitioners shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. (iv) The petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court/Session court on all the future hearing dates unless prevented by any genuine cause. (v) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court/Sessions Court without prior permission, till the disposal of the case. (vi) The petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation. (vii) In the event of registration of any other criminal case in respect of commission of similar offence, the present bail order shall stand cancelled. (viii) The petitioners shall mark their attendance in respondent-Chikkodi Police Station on every Monday until submission of the final report. 13. Violation of any of the above conditions would result in cancellation of the bail automatically.