SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ker) 766

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. 2383 of 2026
Decided On : 26-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.) Smt.Sona Maria Biju Sri.P.M.Rafiq Sri.Ajeesh K.Sasi Sruthy N. Bhat Smt.Sruthy K.K Shri.K.Aravind Menon Shri.Aaron Zacharias Benny
For the Respondent: Sr.Public Prosecutor Sri.C.K Suresh, Sr.Public Prosecutor Smt.Rekha.S, Spl.Public Prosecutor Sri.Rajesh.A

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 substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the previous dismissal of the bail application.

Headnote:The case involves a second application for anticipatory bail under S.482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023, filed by accused individuals involved in a large-scale financial scam in a cooperative society. Prosecution alleged criminal conspiracy, forgery, and misappropriation of funds involving crores of rupees. The court observed that the allegations were grave and that custodial interrogation was essential for recovery of funds and collection of specimen signatures. Findings of the court were that since the previous bail application was dismissed and the Special Leave Petition was withdrawn before the Supreme Court, and no substantial change in circumstances was demonstrated, the application was liable to be dismissed. The main issue was whether, despite the seriousness of the allegations and previous dismissal of bail, the petitioners had established a change in circumstances warranting the grant of anticipatory bail. The court’s ratio decidendi was that mere arguments concerning the age of the accused or partial repayment of misappropriated funds in a mega-scam do not absolve criminal liability or justify anticipatory bail when custodial interrogation is deemed necessary for investigation. The final result was that the bail application was dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer, with a specific note of displeasure regarding the police failure to effectuate the previous arrest orders.

Table of Content
1. summary of charges and allegations against the accused in a financial crime. (Para 3 , 4)
2. analysis of arguments for bail against the necessity of custodial interrogation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

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.30 to 32 in Crime No.165/2021 of CBCID, 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 37 have committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 417, 418, 420, 409, 465, 468, 471, 423, 477A, 201 and 120B 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 obtained membership bearing No.18637 in the name of the complainant without his knowledge and consent in Karuvannur Service Co-operative Society and thereafter, filed an application for a loan in his name, offering the security of the 1st accused, and thereafter, a loan was granted vide SLM No.3929 for Rs. 25 lakh and the said sum was misappropriated. Thereafter, again Rs. 25 lakh was obtained as loan and now, Rs. 50 lakh along with interest thereof is outstanding to the Society.

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.13766/2025 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.13766/2025 are relevant and are extracted as under:

“3. Here, the prosecution allegation is that, accused Nos.1 to 37 have committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 417, 418, 420, 409, 465, 468, 471, 423, 477A, 201 and 120B 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 obtained membership bearing No.18637 in the name of the complainant without his knowledge and consent in Karuvannur Service Co-operative Society and thereafter, filed an application for a loan in his name, offering the security of the 1st accused, and thereafter, a loan was granted vide SLM No.3929 for Rs. 25 lakh and the said sum was misappropriated. Thereafter, again Rs. 25 lakh was obtained as loan and now, Rs. 50 lakh along with interest thereof is outstanding to the Society.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out the age of the accused persons while canvassing anticipatory bail. According

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top