Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 1089

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
SAJITH.P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 12 OF 2026 | BAIL APPL. NO. 13 OF 2026 | BAIL APPL. NO. 14 OF 2026 | BAIL APPL. NO. 19 OF 2026 | BAIL APPL. NO. 30 OF 2026 | BAIL APPL. NO. 31 OF 2026 | BAIL APPL. NO. 32 OF 2026 | BAIL APPL. NO. 33 OF 2026 | BAIL APPL. NO. 35 OF 2026 | BAIL APPL. NO. 36 OF 2026 | BAIL APPL. NO. 37 OF 2026 | BAIL APPL. NO. 38 OF 2026 | BAIL APPL. NO. 40 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM), SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL (KUMMANAM), SHRI.AJAY T.S.
For the Respondents: SRI.M.C.ASHI-SR.PP, SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA-SR.PP, SRI.U.JAYAKRISHNAN-PP

Bail granted based on insufficient reasons for continued detention, despite serious charges; supervisory roles do not exempt from accountability.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bail applications filed by Secretary of the Mannarkkad Urban Co-operative Credit Society in multiple crimes alleging cheating of depositors - Court assesses the applicant's powers and involvement in the crimes. (Paras 1 to 8)

(B) The court emphasizes the principle that mere supervisory roles do not absolve responsibility if wrongful acts occur. The applicant is recognized as having been implicated in serious allegations but extenuating circumstances may warrant bail. (Paras 5 to 8)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, as the Secretary, is accused of cheating depositors by not returning deposits or paying interest, with multiple bail applications made regarding separate crimes registered at Mannarkkad Police Station.

Findings of Court:
The court deems there is insufficient reason for continued detention; circumstances suggest that the applicant should receive bail pending further investigation.

Issues: The main issue revolves around the applicant's alleged complicity in the financial irregularities and whether detention is justified despite claims of a supervisory role.

Ratio Decidendi: The court asserts the necessity for clear evidence connecting the applicant to the alleged fraud. Detention must be justified, and on the current evidence level, bail is granted.

Result: The application is allowed under specified bail conditions.

Table of Content
1. court connects the bail applications over alleged financial fraud. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court highlights the accused's supervisory role and allegations of misconduct. (Para 4)
3. court discusses the insufficiency of evidence for continued detention. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. court issues bail with specific conditions due to lack of justification for detention. (Para 8)

ORDER

[Bail Appl. Nos.12/2026, 13/2026, 14/2026, 19/2026, 30/2026, 31/2026, 32/2026, 33/2026, 35/2026, 36/2026, 37/2026, 38/2026 and 40/2026]

All the above bail applications are connected and hence I am disposing of the same by a common order.

2. The above bail applications are filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking regular bail.

3. The applicant is same in all these bail applications.

The offences involved in all the crimes are punishable under Sections 336 (3), 340(2), 318(4), 316(2), 316(5) and 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20023 (for short, BNS )

4. B.A.No.12 of 2026 pertains to Crime No.1193/2025, B.A.No.13 of 2026 pertains to Crime No.1194/2025, B.A.No.14 of 2026 pertains to Crime No.1196/2025, B.A.No.19 of 2026 pertains to Crime No.1224/2025, B.A.No.30 of 2026 pertains to Crime No.1225/2025, B.A.No.31 of 2026 pertains to Crime No.1227/2025, B.A.No.32 of 2026 pertains to Crime No.1228/2025, B.A.No.33 of 2026 pertains to Crime No.1229/2025, B.A.No.35 of 2026 pertains to Crime No.1230/2025, B.A.No.36 of 2026 pertains to Crime No.1231/2025, B.A.No.37 of 2026 pertains to Crime No.1243/2025, B.A.No.38 of 2026 pertains to Crime No.1246/2025 and B.A.No.40 of 2026 pertains to Crime No.1247/2025. All the crimes are registered at Mannarkkad Police Station, Palakkad District.

5. The applicant is the Secretary of the Mannarkkad Urban Co-operative Credit Society and the defacto complainants are the depositors who deposited the amounts in the Society. The prosecution allegation in all the crimes is that the applicant cheated the defacto complainants without giving the interest for the deposit or returning the principal amount on maturity and thereby committed the offences.

6. I have heard Sri.R.Bindu Sasthamangalam, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.C.Ashi, Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha and Sri.U.Jayakrishnan, the learned Public Prosecutors. Perused the case diary.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutors submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

8. The applicant was formally arrested on 15.12.2025. In fact, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.11.2025 in the connected three crimes. The investigation is almost over. According to the applicant, he has only supervisory administrative power over the staff of the Society and the cash transactions in the Society are mainly done through the cashier as well as the clerical staff of the Society. It is specifically averred in the bail application that he had given a detailed complaint to the police regarding the malpractices committed by the cashier as well as the clerical staff and the internal auditor and sought for an investigation into the same. For these reasons, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required for any purpose. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions: -

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each in each case with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

(ii) The applicant shall f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document