Anticipatory bail denied due to serious allegations of financial misappropriation, necessitating custodial interrogation.

ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

This is an application for anticipatory bail led by the petitioner in Crime No. 1085 of 2025, registered by the Kollam West police station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’), and later offences are corrected as under Sections 406, 420, and 468 of IPC on finding that the offences were committed before April 2024.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant who is impleaded as the additional 2^nd respondent, and also the learned counsel for one of two beneficiaries got impleaded as additional 3rd, and 4th respondents in this case by allowing their petitions.

3. Reading the FIR, the prosecution allegation is that the accused herein, who worked as the Secretary of Kollam Co-operative Building Society Q157 (for short, ‘the Society’ hereinafter), obtained unlawful enrichment on getting deposits from third parties for and on behalf of the Society, and misappropriated the same without depositing the same in the Society. When the so-called persons demanded back their money, the accused issued twelve cheques to those persons by forging the signature of the President therein, who is the de facto complainant in this case, and also by putting her signature since the cheque of the Society would be honoured only when signed by the President and Secretary. The amount misappropriated by the petitioner as per the allegations in the FIR is Rs.70,74,500/-. During the investigation, it was brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer that apart from the IPC offences, offence under Section 13(1) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, also is committed by the petitioner, and accordingly the investigation is now going on inclusive of the above offences. Further request was given to the Vigilance to take over the case.

4. While pressing for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner read over various documents produced along with the Bail Application and also the minutes of the Society including other documents produced subsequently to contend that the Society has been running in loss and the Society has been trailing to return the money to the depositors. Accordingly, in order to pay the amount to the depositors, deposits were collected from various persons including the relatives of the Secretary and Director Board Members. That apart, Rs.25 lakh was deposited by one Abhijith who expressed to deposit Rs.50 lakh on the condition of providing a job for him in the Society. He pointed out further that, as per the WhatsApp communication between the Secretary and the President, copy of the same has been produced, various loans were granted, and deposits were returned as instructed by the President. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as could be read out from the records produced, the petitioner is bound to obey the instructions of the President, and accordingly, she acted upon the instructions. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out Section 106 of the Cooperative Societies Act in this regard. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that, in the instant case, none of the offences would attract against the petitioner, and if at all, any involvement of the petitioner is found, the same could not be found independently without the involvement of the de facto complainant. Therefore, the de facto complainant also to be made as an accused in the facts of the case.

5. According to the learned counsel fo