Mahesh. J vs State Of Kerala

2025:KER:56999

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------- B.A.No.6118 of 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of July, 2025

ORDER

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