The court ruled that sufficient evidence established intent to defraud, impacting the eligibility for bail.

O R D E R

This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.376/2025 of Melattur Police Station, Malappuram. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3) and

316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

3. The prosecution case is as follows :-

During the period from 01.01.2022 to 20.07.2022, the petitioner, an Assistant Manager of ICICI Prudential Insurance Company, received a sum of Rs.44 lakhs from the defacto complainant assuring that the amount would be deposited in the ICICI Prudential Insurance Company. The petitioner failed to deposit the money in the bank. She issued fake receipts stating that she deposited the amount with the bank.

4. The case of the petitioner is that, a partnership business agreement was executed between the petitioner’s husband and the defacto complainant for running a petrol pump in the name of ‘Thelakkad Petroleum’. The defacto complainant invested money in the business. The petitioner’s husband could not commence business as agreed. Later, the defacto complainant demanded return of the amount. In order to pressurise the petitioner’s husband for repayment, the defacto complainant filed false complaint against the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transaction alleged is of civil in nature. It is submitted that based on a bilateral agreement, the petitioner’s husband received the amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on Annexure A4 agreement, submitted that the defacto complainant had lent Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner’s husband for running a petrol pump.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner contending that Annexure A4 agreement and similar agreements were executed between the petitioner’s husband and the defacto complainant for the purpose of cheating the defacto complainant. It is submitted that the prosecution could collect materials to establish that the petitioner issued fake receipts in favour of the defacto complainant to show that she deposited the money received from the defacto complainant with the ICICI Prudential Insurance Company. It is further submitted that those fake receipts were created by the petitioner with a definite intention to obtain wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the defacto complainant. It is submitted that the Case Diary reveals that the petitioner was dismissed from the service of the Bank, after realising that she created forged receipts of the bank.

8. The materials placed before the court reveals that the petitioner has direct involvement in the offences alleged. There are sufficient materials to show the intention of the petitioner was to obtain wrongful gain by committing forgery. The prosecution has prima facie established the grounds to attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the protection contained in Section 482 of the BNSS. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of considering the merits of the bail application.

The Bail Application stands dismissed.