The court denied pre-arrest bail due to lack of changed circumstances and necessity for custodial interrogation in a fraud case involving significant financial loss.

ORDER

This is the second application filed under Section 482 of the Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.1105 of 2022 of the Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta District, which is registered against five accused persons, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

3.The gravamen of the prosecution case is that: in April 2018, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 had approached the de-facto complainant and fraudulently promised that they would secure him a loan to purchase an Aluminium Fabrication Company abroad. Accordingly, the accused 1 to 3 took the title deeds of his property having an extent of 1 Acre and 28 Cents, and in furtherance of their common intention with the other accused, created an equitable mortgage with the South Indian Bank, where the fifth accused was the Branch Manager. They took the loan in the name of the fourth accused/petitioner, by making her the main applicant and the defacto complainant as the guarantor, that too by fabricating and concocting the documents of the defacto complainant without his knowledge. Consequently, an amount of Rs.93,00,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the fourth accused, who in turn transferred the amount to accused 1 to 3. The accused did not pay any amount to the defacto complainant or return his title deeds. The accused have caused a loss of Rs.1,60,00,000/- to the de-facto complainant. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4.Heard; Sri. M.Sasindran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Pushpalatha M.K, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a change of circumstance subsequent to the Annexure AII order because the Investigating Officer has contacted the petitioner on 13 occasions, and the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that there is no change of circumstance subsequent to the passing of Annexure AII order. There are incriminating materials to establish that the loan amount of Rs.93,00,000/- was transferred to the bank account of the petitioner and the amount was withdrawn. This Court has considered all the contentions in the earlier application and dismissed the same by Annexure AII order. Despite the petitioner being directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of Annexure AII order, she has not surrendered so far before the Investigating Officer. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected. Therefore, the application may be dismissed.

6. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he has manipulated the documents, loan was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and the entire amount of Rs.93,00,000/- was transferred to her bank account and she transferred the money to the bank accounts of accused Nos. 1 to 3. In Annexure AII order this Court has considered all the earlier contentions that were canvassed by the petitioner. I do not find any change of circumstance subsequent to the passing of Annexure AII order. This Court is shocked that the Investigating Officer has not taken any coercive proceedings despite Annexure AII order being passed on 26.2.2024. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the District Police Chief for compliance.

Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.