ORDER : These three Bail Applications filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita are connected, and therefore I am disposing of these cases by a common order. 2. Petitioners in B. A No.7812/2024 and 7808/2024 are accused in Crime No.1228/2024 of Kondotty Police Station, Kozhikode. Petitioners in B. A No.9544/2024 are accused in Crime No.806/2024 of Feroke Police Station, Kozhikode. 3. Crime No.1228/2024 is registered by the Kondotty Police based on a complaint filed by the additional 2 nd respondent herein. The case of the complainant is that the petitioners, between 9 p.m on 30.08.2024 and 1 p.m. on 01.09.2024, stole 189 mobile phones of various brands valued at approximately Rs.49,35,189/- along with Rs.50,400/- in cash from a mobile and accessory shop owned by M/s. ASHTEL RETAIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED where the additional 2 nd respondent is the Director. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offences under Section 306 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short ’BNS’). 4. Crime No.806/2024 is registered by the Feroke Police alleging offences punishable under Section 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS. This case was registered based on the complaint filed by the 2 nd respondent, who is the Director of M/s. ASHTEL RETAIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. The allegation is that the mobile phones and accessories worth Rs. 41,85,960/- and cash of Rs. 16,030/- were stolen from their shop. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. The petitioners apprehend arrest in both these cases. Hence, these bail applications. 5. Heard counsel appearing for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 6. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that all the allegations against the petitioners are not correct. The counsel submitted that it is a false case foisted against the petitioners. It is also submitted that an agreement has been executed between M/s. ASHTEL RETAIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED and the petitioner in B.A No.7808/2024. It is submitted that Annexure A2 agreement in B.A No.7808/2024 was cancelled and a new agreement was drawn, wherein, the petitioner in B.A No.7808/2024 retired from the partnership. It is submitted that he seems to be a partner from 27.08.2024. It is submitted that there was a dispute between the Franchisor, the petitioners and the complainant about the running of the shop and the division of profit. It is submitted that he seems to be a partner from 27.08.2024. It is submitted that there was a dispute between the Franchisor, the petitioners and the complainant about the running of the shop and the division of profit. It is the definite case of the petitioner that on 02.09.2024, several persons led by the service department head of the company, broke open the lock of the shutter by using gas cutters and entered the shop. This was done in the absence of the franchisee at that time. It is also the case of the petitioners that they removed all items kept at the shop and packed up. 7. It is alleged that the petitioners have not committed any offence. 8. The defacto complainant filed a detailed objection.The defacto complainant produced Annexures R2(a) to R2(k) along with the objection. It is submitted by the 2 nd respondent that the petitioners committed theft, of all the mobile phones and other accessories from the shop. It is also submitted that the 2 nd respondent with the consent of the Police broke open the two shops and it was found that all the mobile phones were removed by the petitioners. It is also submitted that the removed mobile phones were already sold and activated subsequently. That shows that the petitioners committed the offence. The counsel submitted that the petitioners may not be released on bail. The Public Prosecutor also seriously opposed the bail application and submitted that the mobile phones are to be recovered for which custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. 9. Since the dispute is regarding the missing of mobile phones from the shop, this Court directed the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer was allowed to interrogate the petitioners. The Investigating Officers were directed to report whether custodial interrogation was necessary. After interrogation, the Investigating Officer submitted that the recovery of mobile phones is necessary and custodial interrogation is also necessary. 10. This Court also tried to settle the dispute by referring the matter to mediation. Even though the mediation continued for several days, the matter was not settled. 11. According to the defacto complainant, they were franchisees. After interrogation, the Investigating Officer submitted that the recovery of mobile phones is necessary and custodial interrogation is also necessary. 10. This Court also tried to settle the dispute by referring the matter to mediation. Even though the mediation continued for several days, the matter was not settled. 11. According to the defacto complainant, they were franchisees. A perusal of the objection filed by the additional second respondent in B. A No. 7808/2024, it seems that the additional second respondent is the license holder, GST holder and insurance policy holder of the franchise shop named ASHTEL RETAIL INDIA PVT LTD, Kondotty. Annexure R2(a) is the trade license and Annexure R2(b) is the GST Registration Certificate. Annexure-R2(c) is the Shopkeeper's Insurance issued by the New India Assurance Company. A perusal of Annexure R2(d) would show that the monthly rental payment of the shop is paid by the additional second respondent. According to the defacto complainant, the accused entered into a Franchise agreement with the additional second respondent’s company and started a franchisee branch of Easy Stores and Easy Care, a retail shop to sell mobile, laptops and other electronic accessories and repair and service of mobile phones and laptops. The accused also started this Franchise shop at Kondotty, Malappuram District. 12. It is submitted that the branch expenses including the salary of the employees, electricity bills etc are paid by the additional second respondent’s company. It is also submitted that clause 10 of the Franchise Agreement clearly explains how profits are divided and branch expenses are handed over. It is submitted that one of the accused sent an email to the Administrative head of the company as evidenced by Annexure R2(e), addressing his desire to retire/cease from the Franchise partition. On 27.08.2024, the petitioner, his partner Mr.Ummar and the additional second respondent agreed to revoke the initial agreement and drafted a new one to make Mr. Ummer, the sole Franchisee. But, the second agreement was not executed, as there were legal formalities to be completed by the Franchisor, is the submission. It is also submitted that on 31.08.2024 at 09:00 am., one of the accused sent a WhatsApp message to his store employees’ group stating that Kondotty and Ramanattukara shops would be closed for the next two days. A complaint was filed before the Kondotty Police Police Station regarding the closure of the shop. It is also submitted that on 31.08.2024 at 09:00 am., one of the accused sent a WhatsApp message to his store employees’ group stating that Kondotty and Ramanattukara shops would be closed for the next two days. A complaint was filed before the Kondotty Police Police Station regarding the closure of the shop. Subsequently, on 01.09.2024, the staff of the additional second respondent proceeded to Kondotty Police Station and informed wherein, the Police Official directed them to break open the lock as they are the license holders of the shop. 13. It is submitted that the staff of the company broke open the store on 01.09.2024 with the permission of the police and found that, stock and money from the Kondotty Store were missing. Accordingly, Crime No. 1228/2024 was registered by Kondotty Police. Crime No. 806/2024 was registered by the Feroke Police when the shop situated there was also broken with the permission of the police and when the articles were found missing. 14. These cases were registered mainly for missing mobile phones worth lakhs. The mobile phones are to be recovered. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. The petitioners are not entitled to any discretionary relief under Sec.482 BNSS. There is no merit in this bail application and accordingly, the same is dismissed.