Common Order:

1. B.A. No.13227 of 2025 has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre-arrest bail, by Sri.Najeeb V, who has been arrayed as the 3rd accused in Crime No.472 of 2025 of Thondarnadu Police Station.

2. B.A. No.13229 of 2025 is an application for pre- arrest bail, at the instance of Sri.Najeeb V, who has been arrayed as the 3rd accused in Crime No.473 of 2025 of Thondarnadu Police Station.

3. B.A. No.13230 of 2025 is an application for pre- arrest bail, at the instance of Sri.Najeeb V, who has been arrayed as the 3rd accused in Crime No.474 of 2025 of Thondarnadu Police Station.

4. B.A. No.13237 of 2025 is an application for pre- arrest bail, at the instance of Sri.Najeeb V, who has been arrayed as the 3rd accused in Crime No.475 of 2025 of Thondarnadu Police Station.

5. B.A. No.13239 of 2025 is an application for pre- arrest bail, at the instance of Sri.Najeeb V, who has been arrayed as the 4th accused in Crime No.476 of 2025 of Thondarnadu Police Station.

6. B.A. No.13271 of 2025 is an application for pre- arrest bail, at the instance of Sri.Baiju T.K, who has been arrayed as the 4th accused in Crime No.472 of 2025 of Thondarnadu Police Station.

7. B.A. No.13322 of 2025 is an application for pre- arrest bail, at the instance of Sri.Baiju T.K, who has been arrayed as the 3rd accused in Crime No.477 of 2025 of Thondarnadu Police Station.

8. B.A. No.13253 of 2025 is an application for pre- arrest bail, at the instance of Sri.Baiju T.K, who has been arrayed as the 3rd accused in Crime No.471 of 2025 of Thondarnadu Police Station.

9. B.A. No.13288 of 2025 is an application for pre- arrest bail, at the instance of Sri.Baiju T.K, who has been arrayed as the 4th accused in Crime No.474 of 2025 of Thondarnadu Police Station.

10. B.A. No.13309 of 2025 is an application for pre- arrest bail, at the instance of Sri.Baiju T.K, who has been arrayed as the 4th accused in Crime No. 473 of 2025 of Thondarnadu Police Station.

11. B.A. No.13535 of 2025 is an application for pre- arrest bail, at the instance of Sri.Rashid A, who has been arrayed as the 5th accused in Crime No.472 of 2025 of Thondarnadu Police Station.

12. B.A. No.13537 of 2025 is an application for pre- arrest bail, at the instance of Sri.Rashid A, who has been arrayed as the 3rd accused in Crime No.476 of 2025 of Thondarnadu Police Station.

13. Heard the respective counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the relevant materials available and the case diaries of each case, by the learned Public Prosecutor.

14. In Crime No.472/2025 of Thondernadu Police Station, the prosecution case is that, after registration of Crime No. 373/2025 of Thondernadu Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 316(4) and (5), 318(2), (3) and (4) r/w 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter  referred  as  ‘BNS’  for  short),  the  defacto complainant, who is the District Joint Programme Co-ordinator of MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005), conducted an inquiry regarding the financial irregularities alleged under the various schemes in the Thondenadu Grama Panchayath. During enquiry it was found that Jojo Johny (Accredited Engineer) and Nidhin (Accountant), who were handling the Employment Guarantee Scheme (തoൊഴിലുറപ്പ്പദ്ധoി) of Thondemadu Grama Panchayath, along with the vendors named Najeeb.V., Baiju.T.K. and Rashid Athilan (the petitioners herein), in furtherance of their common intention to dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriate Government funds allotted to the beneficiaries for the construction of chicken coops, had intentionally concealed the actual cost and falsified the project records by showing inflated amounts and illegally diverted an amount of Rs.13,47,711/- (Rupees Thirteen lakh forty seven thousand seven hundred and eleven only) by transferring the same to the bank accounts of the aforesaid vendors during the period from 2021-2022 to 2024-2025 by fraudulently using the login credentials of the Panchayath Secretary and thereby committed criminal breach of trust and caused an undue financial loss to the Government. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 316(4), 316(5) 318(2), 318(3), 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS as well as under Sections 7(a) and 13(1)(a)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, (hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act, 2018’ for short), by the accused.

15. In Crime No.473/2025 of Thondernadu Police Station, the prosecution case is that, after registration of Crime No. 373/2025 of Thondernadu Police Station, the defacto complainant, who is the District Joint Programme Co- ordinator of MGNREGA, conducted an inquiry regarding the financial irregularities alleged under the various schemes in the Thondernadu Grama Panchayath. During enquiry it was found that Jojo Johny (Accredited Engineer) and Nidhin (Accountant), who were handling the Employment Guarantee Scheme (തoൊഴിലുറപ്പ്പദ്ധoി) of Thondernadu Grama Panchayath, along with the vendors named Najeeb. V., Baiju.T.K., Subin Joseph, Prasad K.C. Joseph.P.J., Asya, Rajamma.P.K., Rajani and Sheeja.K.V. in furtherance of their common   intention   to   dishonestly   and   fraudulently misappropriate Government funds allotted to the beneficiaries under the well digging project, had unlawfully misappropriated and transferred an amount of Rs.25,39,258/- (Rupees Twenty five lakh thirty nine thousand two hundred and fifty eight only) to the bank accounts of the aforesaid vendors by fraudulently using the login credentials of the Panchayath Secretary during the period commencing from 2020-2021 till 2024-2025 and thereby committed criminal breach of trust and caused an undue financial loss to the Government. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 316(4), 316(5), 318(2), 318(3), 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS as well as under Sections 7(a) and 13(1)(a)(2) of the P.C. Act, 2018, by the accused.

16. In Crime No.474/2025 of Thondernadu Police Station, the prosecution case is that, after registration of Crime No. 373/2025 of Thondernadu Police Station, the defacto complainant, who is the District Joint Programme Co- ordinator of MGNREGA, conducted an inquiry regarding the financial irregularities alleged under the various schemes in the Thondernadu Grama Panchayath. During enquiry it was found that Jojo Johny (Accredited Engineer) and Nidhin (Accountant), who were handling the Employment Guarantee Scheme (തoൊഴിലുറപ്പ്പദ്ധoി) of Thondermadu Grama Panchayath, along with the vendors named Najeeb. V. and Baiju.T.K., in furtherance of their common intention to dishonestly  and  fraudulently  misappropriate  Government funds allotted to the beneficiaries for the construction of cattle sheds, had manipulated the project records and illegally diverted an amount of Rs.13,45,417/- (Rupees Thirteen lakh forty five thousand four hundred and seventeen only) by transferring the same to the bank accounts of the aforesaid vendors during the period from 2020-21 to 2022-23 by fraudulently using the login credentials of the Panchayath Secretary and thereby committed criminal breach of trust and caused an undue financial loss to the Government. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 316(4), 316(5), 318(2), 318(3), 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS as well as under Sections 7(a) and 13(1)(a)(2) of the P.C. Act, 2018, by the accused.

17. In  Crime  No.475/2025  of  Thondernadu  Police Station, the prosecution case is that, after registration of Crime No. 373/2025 of Thondernadu Police Station, the defacto complainant, who is the District Joint Programme Co- ordinator of MGNREGA, conducted an inquiry regarding the financial irregularities alleged under the various schemes in the Thondernadu Grama Panchayath. During enquiry it was found that Jojo Johny (Accredited Engineer) and Nidhin (Accountant), who were handling the Employment Guarantee Scheme  (തoൊഴിലുറപ്പ്  പദ്ധoി)  of  Thondermadu  Grama Panchayath, along with a vendor named Najeeb. V., in furtherance of their common intention to dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriate Government funds allotted to the beneficiaries for the construction of soak pits, had illegally transferred an amount of Rs.1,03,756/- (Rupees One lakh three thousand seven hundred and fifty six only) to the bank account of the aforesaid vendor during the 2023-24 financial year by fraudulently using the login credentials of the Panchayath Secretary and thereby committed criminal breach of trust and caused an undue financial loss to the Government. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission  of offences punishable under Sections 316(4), 316(5), 318(2), 318(3), 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, by the accused.

18. In Crime No.476/2025 of Thondernadu Police Station, the prosecution case is that, after registration of Crime No. 373/2025 of Thondernadu Police Station, the defacto complainant, who is the District Joint Programme Co- ordinator of MGNREGA, conducted an inquiry regarding the financial irregularities alleged under the various schemes in the Thondernadu Grama Panchayath. During enquiry it was found that Jojo Johny (Accredited Engineer) and Nidhin (Accountant), who were handling the Employment Guarantee Scheme  (തoൊഴിലുറപ്പ്  പദ്ധoി)  of  Thondenadu  Grama Panchayath, along with the vendors named Najeeb. V. and Rashid Athilan, in furtherance of their common intention to dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriate Government funds allotted to the beneficiaries for the construction of sheepfolds, had intentionally concealed the actual cost, i.e., Rs.48,756/- per shed, and falsified the project records by showing inflated amounts ranging from Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.1,90,000/- per shed and illegally diverted an amount of Rs.1,00,90,000/- (Rupees One crore ninety thousand only) by transferring the same to the bank accounts of the aforesaid vendors during the period from 2023-24 to 2024-25 by fraudulently using the login credentials of the Panchayath Secretary and thereby committed criminal breach of trust and caused an undue financial loss to the Government. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 316(4), 316(5), 318(2), 318(3), 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, by the accused.

19. In Crime No.477/2025 of Thondernadu Police Station, the prosecution case is that, after registration of Crime No. 373/2025 of Thondernadu Police Station, the defacto complainant, who is the District Joint Programme Co- ordinator of MGNREGA, conducted an inquiry regarding the financial irregularities alleged under the various schemes in the Thondernadu Grama Panchayath. During enquiry it was found that found that Jojo Johny (Accredited Engineer) and Nidhin (Accountant) along with a vendor named Baiju T.K., in furtherance of their common intention to dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriate government funds allotted to the concrete works of the Inderikkunnu-Vellamunda public road, had unlawfully transferred an amount of Rs.63,187/- (Rupees sixty three thousand one hundred and eighty seven only) to the bank account of the aforesaid vendor by fraudulently using the login credentials of the Panchayath Secretary during the financial year 2021-22 and thereby committed criminal breach of trust and caused an undue financial loss to the Government. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 316(4), 316(5), 318(2), 318(3), 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS as well as under Sections 7(a) and 13(a) of the P.C. Act, 2018, by the accused.

20. In Crime No.471/2025 of Thondernadu Police Station the prosecution case is that, after registration of Crime No. 373/2025 of Thondernadu Police Station, the defacto complainant, who is the District Joint Programme Co- ordinator of MGNREGA, conducted an inquiry regarding the financial irregularities alleged under the various schemes in the Thondernadu Grama Panchayath. During enquiry it was found that found that Jojo Johny (Accredited Engineer) and Nidhin (Accountant), who were handling the Employment Guarantee Scheme (തoൊഴിലുറപ്പ്പദ്ധoി) of the said Panchayath,  along  with  a  vendor  named  BaijuT.K.  in furtherance of their common intention to dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriate Government funds, had unlawfully misappropriated and transferred an amount of Rs.1,06,090/- (Rupees One lakh six thousand and ninety only) to the bank account of the aforesaid vendor in connection with the construction of an Anganwadi at Karimbummal in Thondernadu Amsom by fraudulently using the login credentials of the Panchayath Secretary during the financial year 2021-22 and thereby committed criminal breach of trust and caused an undue financial loss to the Government. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 316(4), 316(5), 318(2), 318(3), 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS as well as under Sections 7(a) and 13(a) of the P.C. Act, 2018, by the accused.

21. While canvasing anticipatory bail to Sri.Baiju T.K, who is the petitioner in B.A. Nos.13253, 13271, 13288, 13309 and 13322 of 2025, the learned counsel appearing for Sri.Baiju T.K. submitted that Sri.Baiju T.K. is innocent. According to him, earlier a crime was registered as Crime No.373/2025 by Thondernadu Police and thereafter a twenty one  member  committee  headed  by  the  Secretary, Thondernad Grama Panchayat was constituted by the District Collector to enquire into the details of the alleged financial irregularities in connection with the construction of a pond in MGNREGA scheme of Thondernad Grama Panchayat. Thereafter, the committee found prima facie that there are financial irregularities in connection with the works of MGNREGA scheme. It is submitted by the learned counsel for Sri.Baiju T.K. that, the allegation of the prosecution that, by partly conducting the works and by making falsification of records, the funds allotted to various projects under the MGNREGA scheme were misappropriated and transferred by accused Nos.1 and 2 in the accounts of the vendors including Sri.Baiju T.K. Therefore, Sri.Baiju T.K. has no involvement in these crimes. According to the learned counsel, insofar as Sri.Baiju T.K. is concerned, he is not a Government servant. Therefore, he could not be roped into these crimes.

22. It is submitted by the learned counsel for Sri.Baiju T.K, that, though all the offences are alleged to be committed prior to the implementation of BNS, offences under the BNS are incorporated in these crimes. He also pointed out that, when there was demand by the 1st accused, representing Thondernad Grama Panchayat stating that some amounts, which in fact not entitled by Sri.Baiju T.K. got transferred in his name, he had re-transferred the same and accordingly a total sum of Rs.34,25,000/- was re-transferred in the account of the 1st accused by Sri.Baiju T.K. Thus, the sum and substance of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for Sri.Baiju T.K. is that none of the offences alleged by the prosecution would attract against him. Therefore, Sri.Baiju T.K. may be released on anticipatory bail and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation and he is ready to be abide by any condition imposed by this Court as a pre-requisite for grant of bail.

23. The learned counsel appearing for Sri.Najeeb V, who is the petitioner in B.A. Nos.13227, 13229, 13230, 13237 and 13239 of 2025 also tendered the same arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for Sri.Baiju T.K. and according to the learned counsel for Sri.Najeeb V, the amount transferred in the account of Sri.Najeeb V. was the amount actually due to him. Therefore, the allegation of the prosecution are baseless. He also fairly submitted that Sri.Najeeb V. is ready to co-operate with the investigation and he is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court as a pre-requisite for grant of bail.

24. The learned counsel appearing for Sri.Rashid.A, who is the petitioner in B.A. Nos.13535 and 13537 of 2025, would submit that Sri.Rashid.A. is innocent and the allegations against him are false. According to him, Sri.Rashid.A received money for the articles he delivered and more amount is to be paid to Sri.Rashid.A, which is entitled by him, for which he had filed a writ petition and the same is pending. The learned counsel appearing for Sri.Rashid.A also submitted that, Sri.Rashid.A. has no involvement in this scam as alleged. Otherwise also, the punishment provided for all the offences alleged by the prosecution is imprisonment for a period of seven years. Therefore, grant of pre-arrest bail may be considered liberally. On this premise, the learned counsel appearing for Sri.Rashid A. also pressed for anticipatory bail to Sri.Rashid.A, with offer to co-operate with the investigation and readiness to abide by any condition.

25. The learned Public Prosecutor placed detailed reports of the Investigating Officer, while zealously opposing bail to the petitioners, who are involved in misappropriation of huge amount, which would come to Rs.2 Crores altogether. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, arrest, custodial interrogation and information about utilization of money by the petitioners herein are necessary to effectuate meaningful investigation in these cases. In such view of the matter, bail plea at the instance of the petitioners is liable to be dismissed. It is also submitted that the re-transfer of the money by Sri.Baiju T.K. is not known to the prosecution. Even otherwise, the re-transfer in the account of the 1st accused is the outcome of conspiracy to share the money to the 1st accused. In support of the arguments rendered by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has placed two decisions of this Court in Shefin M.B. v. State of Kerala reported in [2025 KHC OnLine 2027 : 2025 KHC 2027 : 2025 KER 65919] and Praveen Raj v. State of Kerala reported in [2025 KHC OnLine 949 : 2025 KHC 949 : 2025 KER 65904].

26. In Shefin M.B.’s case (supra), this Court dealt with anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the 1st and 2nd accused in a crime involving misappropriation of Rs.1.14 Crore and held as under:

                  The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances  where  the  Court  is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

27. Similarly, in Praveen Raj’s case (supra), while dealing with anticipatory bail at the instance of the 2nd accused in a crime involving misappropriation of Rs.1.14 Crore, this Court followed the ratio laid down in Shefin M.B.’s case (supra).

28. Here, initially crimes were registered alleging commission of offences under Sections 316(4), 316(5), 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), 318(5) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS by the accused and subsequently offences under Sections 7(a) and 13(1)(a)(2) of the P.C. Act also were incorporated.

29. Coming to the allegations the following facts could be gathered:

                  In   Crime No.472/2025, the allegation   is   that Rs.13,47,711/- was misappropriated by the petitioners herein during 2021-2024 to 2024-2025, from the funds allotted to the beneficiaries in connection with the construction of chicken coop under the Employment Guarantee Scheme of Thondernad Grama Panchayat, by concealing the actual number of chicken coop, by falsifying the project records and showing inflated amounts for the said project.

                  In Crime No.473/2025, the allegation is that, Rs.25,39,258/- was misappropriated by the accused, including Sri.Najeeb V. and Sri.Baiju T.K, during the period 2020-21 to 2024-25, from the fund meant for construction of well for agricultural purposes under the Employment Guarantee Scheme of Thondernad Grama Panchayat, by falsifying the project records.

                  In Crime No.474/2025, the allegation is that, during the period 2020-21 to 2022-23, Rs.13,45,417/- was misappropriated and transferred to bank accounts of the vendors, Sri.Baiju T.K. and Sri.Najeeb V, from the fund meant for construction of cattle shed, by falsifying the project records.

                  In Crime No.475/2025, the allegation is that, during the period 2023-24, Rs.1,03,756/- was misappropriated and transferred to bank account of the vendor, Sri.Najeeb V, from the fund allotted to the beneficiaries for the construction of soak pits, by falsifying the project records.

                  In Crime No.476/2025, the allegations are same, where Rs.1,00,90,000/- was misappropriated and transferred to bank accounts of the vendors, Sri.Rashid A. and Sri.Najeeb V, along with accused Nos.1 and 2, from fund meant for construction of sheepfold, by falsifying the records of the project.

                  In Crime No.477/2025, the allegation is that, from the fund allotted for the concrete works of the Inderikkunnu- Vellamunda public road, Rs.63,187/- was misappropriated and transferred to bank account of the vendor, Sri.Baiju T.K, by falsifying the project records.

                  In Crime No.471/2025, the allegation is that, from the fund allotted for the construction of Anganwadi at Karimbummal in Thondernadu Amson, Rs.1,06,090/- was misappropriated and transferred to bank account of the vendor, Sri.Baiju T.K, by falsifying the project records.

30. It is discernible that, even though the offences under the BNS are alleged, the case records would show that the offences were alleged to be committed by the accused prior to coming into force of BNS and therefore, the offences alleged should have been under Sections 408, 409, 417, 418, 420 read with 34 of IPC and not under BNS.

31. According to the learned counsel for Sri.Baiju T.K, he had re-transferred the money he received from the 1st accused and the same to be considered prima facie as a bonafide act to rule out his involvement in this crime. Adverting this argument, the same is not convincing. The rationale of the prosecution allegation is that, these crimes were the outcome of conspiracy hatched between the 1st accused, the petitioners and the other accused, be it so, what was done by Baiju T.K. is transfer of the misappropriated money to the 1st accused in continuation of conspiracy hatched between the 1st accused and Sri.Baiju T.K, as part of sharing of the misappropriation money. Therefore, the re- transfer of money by Sri.Baiju T.K. will not give any advantage to Sri.Baiju T.K. and the same seems to be an aggravating factor, prima facie, to strengthen the prosecution case.

32. Though the contention raised by the learned counsel for Sri. Rashid  A. is  that, in  these  cases,  the punishment provided for all the offences alleged by the prosecution is imprisonment for a period of seven years, with a view to canvas anticipatory bail easily, the submission is incorrect and the learned counsel for Sri.Rashid A, failed to take note of the fact that in these cases, one of the offences alleged is 316(5) of BNS i.e, 409 of IPC and the punishment provided for the said offence is imprisonment for life. Similarly, for the offence under the P.C. Act, 2018, also the punishment provided is imprisonment extendable upto ten years. Therefore, this contention would not yield in favour of Sri.Rashid A. The further contention of the learned counsel for Sri.Rashid A. that, more amount, which is entitled by Sri.Rashid A. is to be given to him for the articles he delivered, is concerned, the same also would not yield in favour of Sri.Rashid A, since the records of the prosecution shows his involvement in this crime, prima facie.

33. On perusal of the serious objection raised by the learned Public Prosecutor along with the report of the Investigating Officer, the allegations leveled against the petitioners are serious. It is pointed out by the Investigating Officer that, these crimes have been registered on finding large scale scam and misappropriation of funds meant for the MGNREGA project of Thondernadu Grama Panchayat during the period between 2020-2025 and the investigation was entrusted to the District Crime Branch noticing the seriousness of allegations, for detailed and effective investigation. According to the learned Public Prosecutor and as per the report of the Investigating Officer, it is necessary to arrest and question the petitioners herein in custody and also to recover the misappropriated money from the accused persons to effectuate meaningful investigation and if they would be released on bail, the said course of action could not be materialized and eventually the entire investigation would be spoiled and hampered. It is also submitted that, if anticipatory bail would be granted to the petitioners, they would influence the witnesses and destroy the evidence to screen themselves from the clutches of prosecution. It is also pointed out that, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners, who misappropriated huge amounts of Government money would give a wrong message to the society and there is likelihood of manhandling the petitioners by the public. It is also pointed out that, knowing the registration of crimes, the 1st accused reported to have left India and went abroad. Thus, there is likelihood of the petitioners herein also fleeing from the process of investigation to defeat the investigation. It is specifically pointed out that, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary to unearth the truth of the allegations.

34. On reading the reasons urged by the learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners herein, where misappropriation of Rs.2 Crore is involved, this Court is of the view that granting anticipatory bail as a general rule to persons, who are involved in corruption cases involving misappropriation of Crores of rupees, in fact, would spoil the investigation itself and the same would affect meaningful exercise to have successive prosecution. In such a cases, anticipatory bail could not be granted to the petitioners, since the same would impair the investigation. That apart, for the reasons urged by the learned Public Prosecutor in tune with the report of the Investigating Officer stating that, it is necessary to arrest and question the petitioners herein in custody and also to recover the misappropriated money  from  the  accused  persons  to effectuate meaningful investigation and if they would be released on bail, the said course of action could not be materialized, found to be of having much force and acceptable. Therefore, the arrest, custodial interrogation and recovery of misappropriated money are very much essential to effectuate meaningful investigation and successful prosecution. In such contingency, anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the petitioners could not be allowed. Therefore, the bail applications must fail.

35. In the result, these pre-arrest bail applications fail and are accordingly dismissed, with direction to the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer, forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. Failing which, the Investigating Officer is directed to effectuate meaningful investigation, by recording the arrest of the petitioners, as per law, as it is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that, their arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary.

                  Interim orders in these petitions restraining the arrest of the petitioners herein is vacated.