IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
M.V.Justin, S/o.Varghese – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 2376 of 2026
Decided On : 26-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rejection of anticipatory bail in serious economic offences where conditions have not changed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
This is the 2nd application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sasnhita, 2023, by the petitioners, who are accused Nos.24 to 26 in Crime No.252/2021 of Crime Branch Economic Offences Wing, Thrissur.
2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Here, the prosecution allegation is that, accused Nos.1 to 31 have committed offences punishable under Sections 120B , 406, 409, 465, 468, 471 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 13(1)(a) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
4. The prosecution case is that the accused herein hatched conspiracy and as an outcome of the same, they have obtained membership bearing No.18637 in the name of the complainant and thereafter, by using forged documents by providing the property of the 1st accused, a sum of Rs. 25 lakh was granted as loan vide SLM No.3929 dated 16.07.2011. Subsequently, in the same mode, on 27.03.2014, SLM No.4589 for Rs. 25 lakh; on 09.03.2015, SLM No.4843 for Rs. 50 lakh; on 26.03.2016, SLM No.5180 for Rs. 50 lakh; on 20.03.2017, SLM No.5495 for Rs. 50 lakh; on 31.03.2018, SLM No.5940 for Rs. 50 lakh; and on 11.11.2014, vide BOD No.744 for Rs. 50 lakh, were obtained, and the accused persons misappropriated the same through RUBCO. Thus, misappropriation of the principal amount of Rs. 3 Crore, along with accrued interest is involved in the case. In this connection, the complainant Sri.Muhammed Abdul Riyas filed a complaint before the Vigilance and crime was registered.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out the age of the accused persons while canvassing anticipatory bail. According to him, the petitioners are innocent and they are ready to co-operate with the investigation.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that the allegations against them are grave and that their arrest, custodial interrogation, taking of specimen signatures, and recovery of the money are necessary, and in such circumstances, the grant of anticipatory bail would impede the investigation.
7. In this matter, earlier, the petitioners herein have filed B.A.No.13738/2025 seeking anticipatory bail and as per Annexure 2 order dated 02.12.2025, this Court dismissed the said bail application mainly on the ground that arrest, custodial interrogation, and collection of specimen signatures were necessary for the purpose of investigation and alleged recovery of details relating to the misappropriation, with direction to the petitioners/accused to surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith. Paragraph Nos.3 to 9 of B.A.No.13738/2025 are relevant and are extracted as under:
3. Here, the prosecution allegation is that, accused Nos.1 to 31 have committed offences punishable under Sections 120B , 406, 409, 465, 468, 471 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’ hereinafter) and under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter) and Section 13(1)(a) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short, ‘the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018’ hereinafter).
4. The prosecution case is that the accused herein hatched conspiracy and as an outcome of the same, they have obtained membership bearing No.18637 in the name of the complainant and thereafter, by using forged documents by providing the property of the 1st accused, a sum of Rs. 25 lakh was granted as loan vide SLM No.3929 dated 16.07.2011. Subsequently, in the same mode, on 27.03.2014, SLM No.4589 for Rs. 25 lakh; on 09.03.20
Anticipatory bail in cases of grave socioeconomic offenses, such as large-scale financial misappropriation, is not permissible when custodial interrogation is essential for investigation and no subst....
Anticipatory bail is denied in cases of grave economic offences involving large-scale misappropriation of public funds and forgery, especially when prior bail applications were dismissed by the High ....
Bail applications in subordinate courts should be decided within one week and in High Courts within two-three weeks.
Anticipatory bail requires proof of exceptional circumstances; mere violation of departmental norms does not suffice to overturn strong evidence of corruption and misappropriation.
Anticipatory bail in serious financial corruption cases should be denied when custodial interrogation is essential to unearth the conspiracy, recover public funds, and evaluate the accused's specific....
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted when there is no change in circumstances following a previous dismissal of the application in cases of serious economic fraud.
Anticipatory bail in corruption cases requires exceptional circumstances; mere involvement in financial fraud without compelling evidence does not justify bail.
The court denied anticipatory bail, highlighting the serious nature of allegations and ongoing investigations, emphasizing potential interference with evidence and witness tampering.
Anticipatory bail denied due to serious allegations of large-scale financial fraud, necessitating custodial interrogation to prevent evidence tampering and uphold public interest.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.