ORDER : These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita . These bail applications are connected and therefore I am disposing of these cases by a common order. 2. The petitioner in these bail applications is the accused in different crimes registered by Vanchiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above cases are registered against the petitioner inter alia under Sections 408 , 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the defacto complainants in these cases made fixed deposits at Vanchinadu Bhavana Nirmana Sahakarana Sanghom on different occasions from the year 2008 to 2021 and they were offered interest. It is submitted that, even though the depositors received interest for a certain period, subsequently, the depositors did not receive the interest and principal amount. Hence the above cases are registered at the instance of the depositors. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, some of the accused were already released on bail by the Sessions Court under Section 482 of the BNSS in some other cases with the same set of facts. The counsel submitted that the defacto complainants in these cases admitted that they received interest for a certain period and thereafter the interest was not paid. The petitioner is a lawyer and he was the Vice President of the society. It is submitted that, because of the financial difficulty, the society was not able to disburse the amount in bulk. It is also submitted that the society is taking steps to disburse the amount to the depositors. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the cases were registered after an enquiry was conducted by the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies under Section 65 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Serious irregularities are found by the Joint Registrar. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is going on. Therefore, this Court may not grant bail to the petitioner under Section 482 of the BNSS . 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegations against the petitioner is serious. Serious irregularities are found by the Joint Registrar. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is going on. Therefore, this Court may not grant bail to the petitioner under Section 482 of the BNSS . 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegations against the petitioner is serious. But the fact remains that some of the accused, who are involved in the connected crimes with the same set of facts, were released on bail by the Sessions Court. Moreover, the main offences alleged against the petitioner are misappropriation of fund, cheating, forgery etc. The prosecution can prove the same through oral and documentary evidences. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. Therefore, these bail applications can be allowed on stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 A.M., till the final report is filed. 8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v. Directorate of Enforcement [ 2019 (16) SCALE 870 ], after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 9. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [ 2021(5)KHC 353 ] considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted hereunder. “12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. ( Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others ( 1994 KHC 189 : (1994) 4 SCC 260 : 1994 (1) KLT 919 : 1994 (2) KLJ 97 : AIR 1994 SC 1349 : 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating OfÏcer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the ofÏcer to arrest the accused.” 10. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation [ 2023 KHC 6961 ] , the Apex Court observed that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case. 11. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of these cases, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following directions: 1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation. 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned. 3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co- operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise 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. 4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 6. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 A.M., till the final report is filed. 7. 4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 6. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 A.M., till the final report is filed. 7. 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 petitioner even while the petitioner is 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 ]. 8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated.