Mahesh. J vs State Of Kerala

This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').

2. Petitioner is the 13 th accused in Crime No.277 of 2025 of Kovalam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 477(A) and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 94(4), 94(4A) and 94(8) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.

3. According to the prosecution, accused 1 to 25 who are employees, office bearers as well as the Board Members of Venganoor Co-operative Rural Development Co-operative Society had misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,33,49,000/- during the financial year 2016-2017 and caused wrongful loss to the society and thereby accused committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

BAIL APPL. NO. 6118 OF 2025

4

2025:KER:56999

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the petitioner had no role at all in the alleged crime. It was also submitted that petitioner was only a junior clerk who had no signing authority to misappropriate or divert any amount and therefore he stands in the same footing as few of the other accused who have already been granted bail by the Sessions Court. The learned counsel, referring to the audit report produced as Annexure A2 contended that the details and the manner in which the amounts belonging to the society came to be credited in the account of the petitioner's wife is to be identified and even in the audit report, no misappropriation as such has been found against the petitioner and hence he ought to be released on bail. It was also submitted that petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the bail applications filed by the fourteen accused were considered elaborately by the learned Sessions Judge and after noticing the distinction in relation to four of them, bail was granted to ten accused while declining the relief to the petitioner and three others. It was submitted that the audit report produced as Annexure A2 refers to diversion of amounts into the petitioner's wife's account to the extent of Rs.5,25,000/-.

BAIL APPL. NO. 6118 OF 2025

5

2025:KER:56999

7. On a consideration of the rival submissions it is noted that though the petitioner was not an authority entitled to sign any document, considering the prima facie case of diversion of funds of the society into the petitioner's wife's account which could not have been done without his knowledge, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where petitioner could be released on anticipatory bail.

8. Misappropriation of amounts of the society is a serious crime and granting anticipatory bail in the light of the preliminary audit report where specific reference have been made to the diversion of funds of the society to third parties especially those closely related to the petitioner have been identified. Investigation is certainly necessary and in the absence of custodial interrogation, the entire mode in which the misappropriation was carried out will not unravelled. In the decision in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 598], the Supreme Court had observed that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order of pre-arrest bail. It was also observed that success in interrogation will elude, if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a prior bail order during the time he is interrogated. In fact, the court went on to hold that insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere

BAIL APPL. NO. 6118 OF 2025

6

2025:KER:56999

ritual.

Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner, I am of the view that petitioner cannot be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail. In this context, it needs to be mentioned that in B.A.No.5640 of 2025 and B.A.No.6029 of 2025 filed by accused 1 and 2 this Court has already dismissed their bail applications.

Accordingly, I find no merit in this bail application and it is dismissed.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

RKM

BAIL APPL. NO. 6118 OF 2025

7

2025:KER:56999

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6118/2025

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 277 OF

2025 STATION DATED 6.3.2025

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY REPORT DATED

23/07/2024 MADE BY THE DE-FACTO

COMPLAINANT

Annexure A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER

DATED 08/04/2025 IN CRL M.C. NO. 864 OF

2025 AND CONNECTED PETITIONERS ON THE

FILES OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-I,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM