The court established that anticipatory bail should be granted based on the specific circumstances of the case, particularly when the accused's involvement in the alleged crime is not substantiated.

O R D E R

The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.1646 of 2023 of the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which is registered against two accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409 and 420 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: an amount of Rs.10/- Lakh was sanctioned for conducting a training programme at the SAMETI Training Centre under the Department of Agricultural Development and Farmer’s Welfare (‘Department’ in short). However, the first accused, the Accounts Officer of the above Department, transferred the said amount to the bank account of the second accused on 29.5.2020. The accused 1 and 2, in furtherance of their common intention, had deliberately transferred the said amount to the bank account of the second accused, who withdrew the amount and misappropriated the same. Thus, the accused have caused unjust loss to the Government and have committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri.Susmith Kumar T.D, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against her. The petitioner is a 70 year old widow, whose late husband had superannuated from the Malabar Market Committee on 12.11.2018. Yet, he was not paid his terminal benefits. On his death, the petitioner only received family pension. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted Annexure A1 representation before the District Collector for the terminal benefits of her husband. The District Collector, Kozhikode, by Annexure A2 letter, informed her that all the terminal benefits were sanctioned. Subsequently, an amount of Rs.10/- Lakh was credited to the petitioner’s bank account on 29.5.2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic period. In 2021, the petitioner’s family pension was stopped. Then she submitted a representation to the Department claiming her family pension. The Director of the Department, by Annexure-A3 letter, directed her to submit all documents pertaining to the family pension. Later, by Annexure-A4 letter, the petitioner was shockingly informed that the amount of Rs.10/- Lakh was mistakenly credited to her bank account, and she was demanded to refund the money. Thereafter, the Department consistently threatened the petitioner of dire consequences. By no stretch of imagination can the offence under Secs.406, 409 and 420 of the IPC be attributed against the petitioner. The petitioner allthroughout believed that the amount credited to her account was the terminal benefits of her husband. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that the first accused had erroneously transferred Rs.10/- Lakh to the bank account of the second accused, who had misappropriated the said amount and caused unjust loss to the Government. Even though the petitioner was directed to return the money, she failed to return the same. The Director of the Department has communicated that there was a technical error in the system, which led to the amount of Rs.10/- Lakh being credited to the petitioner’s bank account. The petitioner’s son had agreed to refund the money to the Department. The petitioner’s husband’s terminal benefits was made available to her on 18.9.2022. But the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Chief Minister of the State, alleging that she had not received the terminal benefits. Even though the petitioner was served with Section 41 (A) notice under the Cr.P.C on three occasions, she failed to appear before the Investigating Officer. The pet