The court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted where serious allegations of misappropriation exist, requiring custodial interrogation for a thorough investigation.

ORDER

Dated this the 7^th day of January, 2026.

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No. 1050 of 2025 Kannur Town Police Station.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and also heard the defacto complainant, who got impleaded as additional 2^nd respondent, in detail. Perused the prosecution records and annexures placed by the petitioners as well as the defacto complainant.

3. The prosecution case as could be discernable from the FIR is that accused Nos.1and 2, who are the supervisor as well as the husband of the 1^st accused (who is an employee) in Sheri/Sherry’ brand, including Sherry Books & Stationery, Sherry Ayurveda (Pallikkunnu, New Sherry Medicals/Sherry Medicals (Fort Road), Sherry Common Service Centre (Chalad) Sherry Health Care Centre, misappropriated Rs.1,40,000/- from the above concern owned by the de facto complainant during the period between 2024 August onwards. On this premise, initially the crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 316 (2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’ hereinafter).

Subsequently, during investigation offence under Section 316 (5) also was incorporated and additional 3^rd accused was also impleaded in the array of accused.

4. Now the prosecution allegation is that the accused persons committed offences punishable under Sections

318(4), 316(2) and 316(5) of the BNS .

5. The learned counsel who appearing for the petitioners zealously argued that there is no prima facie case borne out from the prosecution records. According to her, this crime was registered as a retaliatory measure in response to Annexures 7, 8 and 9 complainants lodged by the 1^st accused against the defacto complainant, when she was removed from service before the District Labour Office as well as before the police alleging deformation case against the defacto complainant. It is pointed out that the crux of the prosecution allegations mainly stems from Annexure R2(h) audit report produced by the defacto complainant, which would suggest misappropriation to the tune of Rs.1,43,96,250/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, regarding Annexure R2(h) the petitioners have serious objection therefore the same could not be the basis to find out prima facie case against the petitioners. Therefore, in the instant case, the anticipatory bail is liable to be granted in the interest of justice.

6. Strongly opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, apart from Annexure R2(h), which reveals misappropriation to the tune of ₹1,43,96,250/-, the prosecution records, including the agreement evidencing receipt of ₹15,00,000/- as advance salary by the first accused, placed by the prosecution would show that prima facie, the prosecution case is on a strong plank. It is further contended that in order to accomplish effective investigation, arrest, custodial interrogation of the petitioners and the recovery of the money misappropriated are necessary, and therefore, the grant of anticipatory bail cannot be considered. He also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, when considered the anticipatory bail application, also apprised of these facts while dismissing the anticipatory bail plea raised by the petitioners.

7. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/2^nd respondent also taken attention of this Court to Annexure R2(h) as well as the allegations in the FIR. According to the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, when the Sessions Judge considered the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the petitioners, the