Insufficient evidence deemed for denying bail; conditions set for cooperation with ongoing investigation.

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking pre-

arrest bail.

2. The applicants are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1481/2025 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 336 (2), 336(3)

and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the de-facto complainant and the applicant No.1 were the directors of a company namely Savor Exporters at KSIDC Industrial Area, Kanal Pirivu, Palakkad, and the applicant No.1, in furtherance of their common intention along with his wife (applicant No.2) to defeat the de-facto complainant, forged a bond dated 19.08.2022 by forging the signature of the de-facto complainant and applied for a loan of Rs.1,74,00,000/- at the Bank of India, M.C. Road Branch, Thrissur and secured a loan of Rs.1,74,00,000/- (Rupees One crore seventy four lakhs only) in the name of the company, cheated the de-facto complainant and other directors and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Smt.Anjana Kannath, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri. M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the above crime. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to get bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicants, and if they are released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

6. The defacto complainant, one Mr.Rajagopal, one Mr.Suryakumar and the accused No.1/applicant No.1 are the partners of a firm namely Savor Exporters. Admittedly, the firm availed a loan of Rs.1.74 crores from Bank of India, M.C. Road, Thrissur. The case of the prosecution is that the applicants forged the signature of the defacto complainant in the guarantor form and produced the same before the bank showing the defacto complainant as guarantor. It is not in dispute that all the partners of the firm including the victim have signed the loan application and availed the loan. The accused No.2/ applicant No.2 is the wife of the applicant No.1. She is not the partner of the firm. She is also not in anyway connected with the loan transaction. The only allegation against her is that the applicant No.1 sent the guarantor form to the victim through her. In the report filed by the investigating officer it is stated that custodial interrogation of the accused No.1/applicant No.1 is necessary.

7. For the above reasons, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the accused No.2/applicant No.2 is not necessary and she can be granted pre-arrest bail. For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused No.2/ applicant No.2 alone.

8. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant No.1 is prepared to surrender before the investigating officer.

In the result, the application is disposed of on the following conditions:-

(i) The accused No.2/ applicant No.2 shall be released on bail in the event of her arrest on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may be.

(ii) The accused No.2/applicant No.2 shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting herself to the deemed police custody for discovery, if any, as and when demanded.

(iii) The ac