ORDER : 1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. 2. The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No. 222/2023 of Kollam East Police Station, Kollam District, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 416, 417 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is the allegation that the petitioner, who was the Chairman and Managing Director of Sage and Strong Business Consultant Ltd., Adam Bazar, Thrissur, received Rs. 20,00,000/- offering profit share from the complainants but has not given the profit share or returned the amount, and thereby committed the above offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public prosecutor. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. Sreekumar argues that several crimes were registered against the petitioner with similar allegations, and he had filed WP (Crl.) No. 230 and 381 of 2023, wherein by Annexure A judgment, it was held that since the petitioner has been in custody from 13/01/2023, the delayed recording of his arrest in the crimes already registered infringes his right to life and right of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and a direction was issued that in all crimes already registered against the petitioner as on the date of the judgment namely 25/08/2023, his arrest shall be recorded within an outer period of ten days from that date. There was a further direction to undertake the procedure contemplated under Section 41A Cr. P.C. when an offence of a similar nature is alleged. Learned senior counsel argues notwithstanding the above directions, though the FIR was registered in the instant case on 11/2/2023, arrest was recorded only on 03/08/2023 and even if that date is reckoned, 60 days period is over entitling the petitioner to default bail. 6. The learned Public prosecutor, Sri Manu, opposing the bail application, submits that there was a delay in handing over the case to the new agency as different defacto complainants instituted several cases. The amounts involved in these cases also became a reason for the delay in completing the investigation. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, it is relevant to note the following findings in Annexure A judgment: “24. The amounts involved in these cases also became a reason for the delay in completing the investigation. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, it is relevant to note the following findings in Annexure A judgment: “24. In the statement filed on 3-8-2023, the Investigating Officer mentioned that out of 263 cases being investigated by the Crime Branch against the petitioner, arrest has been recorded only in 185 cases. Of the 79 cases in which arrest has not been recorded, only a handful of them were registered in the month of July 2023, and the rest were registered as early as in June 2023. The convenience of the investigating agency is projected as one of the reasons for the delay in recording arrests. If the arrest is recorded properly, the petitioner would have the liberty to apply for bail. If a delay in recording the arrest occurs, the incarceration of the petitioner can continue for long. Misuse of the powers of arrest is possible in such an instance. 25. Therefore, it is imperative that the investigating agency proceeds to record the arrest of the petitioner immediately on being aware of the fact that he is already in custody, or at least within a reasonable time of registration of the crime. Delayed recording of arrest can be a calculated method for the continued incarceration of an accused in certain situations. This Court reminds itself that long periods of incapacitation can amount to conviction without punishment, which is the antithesis of due procedure and infracts the liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” 8. In light of the above findings, this Court issued directions to record the arrest in all the crimes already registered within an outer period of ten days from the date of the judgment. It is seen that despite the said directions, the arrest was recorded in this case only on 03/08/2023, though the FIR was registered on 11/2/2023. It is also to be noted that the petitioner has been in custody for the last more than nine months, his passport has already been surrendered, all his properties have already been attached under the BUDS Act, the documents in his possession and over which he had control had already been seized. It is also to be noted that the petitioner has been in custody for the last more than nine months, his passport has already been surrendered, all his properties have already been attached under the BUDS Act, the documents in his possession and over which he had control had already been seized. Under such circumstances, further incarceration of the petitioner is unnecessary, more so when, in all other cases, the petitioner has been granted statutory bail. 9. Though the learned Public Prosecutor argues that the stakes involved are high with several cases against the petitioner, I am not inclined to take that as a reason for continued detention. The recording of the arrest after nearly six months itself was plainly against Annexure A judgment. It is also to be seen that proof of the allegations against the petitioner is more in the nature of documentary evidence, as in the instant case, the defacto complainant alleges a transfer of money through his account. There is nothing to suggest that the petitioner has contributed to the delay in the investigation or in the filing of the charge sheet. Under such circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing separate bonds 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; one of the sureties shall be a parent or close relative of the petitioner (ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for three months and thereafter as and when directed to appear. (iii) He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall they tamper with the evidence or do anything that might adversely affect the trial. (iv) He shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) He shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction. (vi) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, within seven days from the date of his release before the Court concerned, and if the release of the passport is required at a later period, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application for the same before the court having jurisdiction. (vi) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, within seven days from the date of his release before the Court concerned, and if the release of the passport is required at a later period, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application for the same before the court having jurisdiction. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect before the court concerned on the date of execution of the bond or within three days thereafter. 10. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.