The court emphasized the importance of ensuring an unobstructed investigation in cases involving fraud and complicity, underscoring the serious implications of anticipatory bail in such contexts.

ORDER

Dated this the 8th day of February, 2023 This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the 3rd accused in Crime No.1467/2022 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant materials form part of the case diary, produced by the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The prosecution case is that, after sharing common intention, the accused persons herein pledged spurious gold ornaments in Indian Overseas Bank, Sreekandeswaram Branch, where the de-facto complainant had been working as Senior Manager during the relevant period. The specific allegation is that, by pledging spurious gold, the 1st accused obtained Rs.24,18,000/-(Rupees Twenty Four Lakh Eighteen Thousand Only), the 2nd accused obtained Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Only) and the 3rd accused/petitioner herein obtained Rs.23,49,000/-(Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Fourty Nine Thousand Only)and the 4th accused has availed Rs. 23,77,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Seventy Seven Thousand only). On this premise, prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC .

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is innocent and he has no role in this occurrence. According to him, the petitioner is a native of Alappuzha and all other accused are persons hailing form Thiruvananthapuram District. On the relevant day of pledging of gold to avail loan of Rs.23,49,000/- by the petitioner, accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 brought him to Thiruvananthapuram and handed over spurious gold on the submission that they want to clear the liability in a Bank (the Bank is also not known to the petitioner) and accordingly, the petitioner happened to pledge the spurious gold, without knowing that the same is spurious gold and availed loan of Rs.23,49,000/- to hand over the same to accused nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, believing them.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is innocent. He also placed reliance on Annexures A3 to A5 documents showing the remittance of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Only) in the name of the 4th accused on 18.10.2022, Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) on 15.10.2022 through account transfer and Annexure.A4 showing remittance of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) alleged towards in the name of A4 on 18.10.2022 and 20.10.2022 respectively.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore the petitioner has no knowledge with regard to the pledging of spurious gold and he is innocent. Since other petitioners were arrested and thereafter, released on bail, custodial interrogation is not necessary.

7. Where as the learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed grant of bail and submitted that the petitioner herein, who is admittedly the friend of the other accused, after sharing common intention defrauded the Bank by pledging spurious gold and manipulated Rs.23,45,000/- and therefore, arrest, custodial interrogation and recovery of the money are absolutely necessary to accomplish successful investigation and meaningful prosecution.

7. At the outset itself, it is to be noted that, in this case the petitioner admits pledging of gold ornaments and availing of gold loan to the tune of Rs.23,49,000/- on 24.08.2022. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the spurious gold entrusted by accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 was pledged by the petitioner without knowing the same as spurious gold. He submitted further that, the amount was obtained for the purpose of clearing bank loan liability of accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 urgently, If the submission is having any iota of truth, definitely the money should have been handed over as such on the date of pledging itself to clear the bank loan. However, the argument of the petitioner relying on Annexure A3 to A5 produced by the petitioner would go to show t