The court affirmed the relevance of individual rights and the necessity of bail conditions, emphasizing a prima facie examination in anticipatory bail applications.

ORDER

These applications are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023.

2. The petitioners in B.A Nos.13631/2025 and 13639/2025 are accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime Nos.1283/2025 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur. The petitioners in B.A Nos.13754/2025 and 13637/2025 are accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime Nos.1284/2025 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur. The petitioners in B.A Nos.13712/2025 and 13635/2025 have been arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime Nos.1285/2025 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur. The petitioners in B.A Nos.13638/2025 and 13853/2025 have been implicated as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime Nos.1242/2025 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur.

6. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

7. B.A No.13639/2025 is taken as the lead case.

8. The prosecution case as narrated in Anx.8 common order dated 15.10.2025 in Crl.M.C No.1232/2025 & 1235/2025 reads thus:

“The petitioners (A2, A3, A4 & A6), who were the President, Secretary, Director Board member and Internal Auditor of ‘the State Bank of India Staff Co- Operative Society Ltd. No.R-345, Thrissur. The petitioners along with other accused persons, fraudulently induced the de-facto complainant to invest money in the Society by promising lucrative interest. In view such false promise and inducement during the period from 12.07.20222 to 25.04.2023 on different occasions the de-facto complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.23,48,750/- in the society in the name of her husband and children. After maturity when the de- facto complainant demanded the money back with interest as promised office bearers of the Society were not ready to return the interest and the amount deposited. Then she realised that the accused cheated her. After an enquiry in the society it is found that the petitioners also liable for the misappropriated and mismanagement of the fund of the society. (sic)”

9. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

10. The learned Senior Counsel made the following submissions:

(i) The petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations levelled against them.

(ii) The petitioners while functioning as office bearers of the Managing Committee have in fact detected the financial discrepancies in the Society and initiated steps to conduct an inquiry under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act .

(iii) The inquiry under Sections 65 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act revealed that financial misappropriation was committed during the tenure of the former office bearers namely one Sri.K.V. Ukru and Smt.Nandakumari.

11. The learned Senior Counsel relied on, Anx.4 order issued under Section 68 (2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act by the competent authority, Anx.5 order appointing the petitioners as the Administrative Committee members and Anx.6 order extending their service as Administrative Committee members by the Government, in support of his contentions. The learned Senior Counsel has taken me to Anx.4 to contend that alleged misappropriation was done during the period from 1998-1999 to 2014-2015, whereas they assumed charge as the Administrative Committee members in 2023. The learned Senior Counsel relied on Anx.2 Arbitration Case initiated by the Society against Smt.Nandakumari and K.V.Ukru to contend that the misappropriation was done at the time when they were in control of the affairs.

12. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner on the ground that in the proceedings under Section 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , there were findings against accused Nos.3 and 4 (petitioners in B.A Nos.13853/2025, 13712/2025, 13754/2025 and 13639/2025).

13. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are prepared to co-