ORDER : This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 9/2025 of Enrakulam Town South Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 318(4) and 336(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 3. The prosecution case is that, the applicant with an intention to deceive and defraud the complainant and others, claimed to possess a Masters Degree and administered treatment to the complainant at his Dental Clinic at Chirattapalam, Fort Kochi. It is further alleged that the petitioner advertised his fake degree through social media for unjust profiteering and thereby committed the above said offences. 4. Heard Senior Counsel Adv.P.Vijayabhanu as instructed by his retaining counsel. Adv.Saiby Jose Kidangoor, counsel appeared for the defacto complainant and I heard the Public Prosecutor also. 5. The Senior counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offences alleged are not attracted. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is an experienced Dental Doctor, who is practising at Fort Kochi for about 30 years. The Senior Counsel produced certain documents to prove the same. The Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner is having BDS degree and MDS degree recognized by the authorities. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 6. Adv. Saiby Jose Kidangoor, who appeared for the defacto complainant seriously opposed the bail application. Adv. Saiby submitted that it is a case in which the petitioner is a doctor practising with fake degree. He not only exhibit the same in his clinic, but it is also exhibited in the social media. The counsel submitted that, at the instance of the petitioner, the investigating agency is changed. Now, the present investigating agency also submitted a report before this Court stating that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Therefore, this Court may not take it lightly. The counsel submitted that it is a fit case in which this Court may not entertain a bail application under sec. 482 BNSS. The counsel submitted that he has not only cheated the defacto complainant, but others including foreigners, who are coming at Fort Kochi. The counsel submitted that the petitioner treated the defacto complainant and several complications arose. The counsel submitted that this bail application may not be entertained. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel submitted that he has not only cheated the defacto complainant, but others including foreigners, who are coming at Fort Kochi. The counsel submitted that the petitioner treated the defacto complainant and several complications arose. The counsel submitted that this bail application may not be entertained. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. When this bail application came up for consideration on 04.03.2025, this Court passed the following order : “After hearing both sides, I think a settlement chance is to be explored before deciding this bail application. Therefore, the petitioner and the defacto complainant will appear before the High Court Mediation Center on 10.03.2025. Nodal Officer will do the needful. The petitioner shall not be arrested till the next posting date. Await the mediation report. Post on 14.03.2025” 8. When this case came up for consideration on 14.03.2025, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not interested to mediate the matter, because it is a serious case in which the petitioner cheated the defacto complainant. Therefore, mediation was not happened. Thereafter, when this case came up for consideration on 17.03.2025, this Court passed the following order : “After hearing both sides and also perusing the documents, I am of the prima facie opinion that the petitioner made out a prima facie case for interim bail. 2. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within one week from today and shall undergo interrogation. 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.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned. 3. The learned Senior counsel made available a copy of the letter issued by the Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town South Police Station, Kochi City to the International University of the Health Sciences, School of Medicine. A reply is also produced. The Public Prosecutor will get instruction from the present Investigating Officer. The interim bail will be in force till the next posting date. Post on 25.03.2025.” 9. It is submitted by the Senior Counsel that the petitioner surrendered before the investigating officer as directed by this Court on 17.03.2025. But, his arrest was not recorded. A reply is also produced. The Public Prosecutor will get instruction from the present Investigating Officer. The interim bail will be in force till the next posting date. Post on 25.03.2025.” 9. It is submitted by the Senior Counsel that the petitioner surrendered before the investigating officer as directed by this Court on 17.03.2025. But, his arrest was not recorded. This Court clearly stated that, after interrogation, if the investigating officer proposed to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail. The Public Prosecutor conceded that the petitioner appeared. But, he is not arrested. That itself shows that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Moreover, it is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. The allegation is that he manipulated an MDS degree. The petitioner has got a different case and according to him, he obtained this degree from a recognized institution. He produced certain documents also to prove the same. If that is the case, the investigating officer can investigate based on the documents produced by the petitioner. Further custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. Therefore, the petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions. 10. 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. 11. 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 Officer 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 officer to arrest the accused.” 12. 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. 13. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is 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 him/her 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. 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. 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 ]. 7. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also. 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.