Anticipatory bail denied in serious bank fraud and corruption case due to need for custodial interrogation and non-cooperation.

ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

Accused Nos.28 and 29 in Crime No.165/CB/TSR/R/2021 of Crime Branch Economic Offences Wing, Thrissur, have filed this petition seeking anticipatory bail, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where they alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 417, 418, 420, 409, 465, 468, 471, 423, 477A, 201 and 120(b) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC' hereinafter) and under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act, 1988' hereinafter), and under Sections 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short, 'the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018' hereinafter).

2. The prosecution allegation is that the accused persons, who were employees and members of the Board of Directors of Karuvannur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., No. R-112, with a dishonest and fraudulent intention to cheat the bank as well as the loanees, and to misappropriate public funds of the Bank, colluded and conspired with each other to sanction illegal loans by creating fake and forged documents, while blatantly violating the provisions of the Bye-laws of the Bank, the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, and the Rules of 1969. They flouted and fabricated accounts connected with the stock position of the Super Market, committed grave manipulations and malpractices in the distribution of RUBCO products through the Bank, thereby gaining huge undue pecuniary advantage amounting to more than Rs.100 crores, and consequently caused corresponding monetary loss to the Bank, committing the offences as alleged.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent. According to him, the allegation in Annexure 2 FIR, i.e., Crime No.12/2023 of Irinjalakuda Police Station, subsequently re-numbered as Crime No.1678/CB/TSR/R/2023, has been reiterated in the present crime against the petitioners. Therefore, the prosecution against the petitioners in the present case is unwarranted. The learned counsel also submitted that though as per Annexure 4 order passed by this Court, this Court denied bail to the petitioners herein, who are the petitioners 4 and 5 in the said bail application, when they approached before the Apex Court, as per Annexure 5 order, the Apex Court granted anticipatory bail to them without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are liable to be released on anticipatory bail, since their arrest and custodial interrogation are not necessary.

4. The learned ADGP appeared and strongly opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted the following facts in writing before this Court:

It was already established from the investigation that the Karuvannur Service Co-operative bank has received financial aid from the State Government and as the Government also have shares in the bank, the office bearers and employees of the bank will fall under the ambit of 'Public Servant' as envisaged in Section 2 of Prevention of Corruption Act On the basis of this investigation findings, relevant sections of Prevention of Corruption Act were added in this case after obtaining sanction from the concerned authorities and accordingly report was submitted to the Court for adding Sec. 13 [1](c),(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 & Sec.13(1)(a) of PC Amendment Act 2018 on 16.02.2023. Consequently, the casefile in this case was transferred to the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur.

3. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that and A7, the