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.

ORDER

Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2026 This is the 2^nd bail application No.37 in Crime No.165 of 2021 of CBCID, Thrissur under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest at the instance of the Investigating Officer.

2. The petitioner along with other accused have filed an earlier bail application vide B.A. No.13766 of 2025. This Court dismissed the same as per order dated 02.12.2025 and the order is as under:

“This anticipatory bail application has been filed by accused Nos.30 to 33 and 35 to 37 in Crime No.165/2021 of CBCID, Thrissur, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest at the instance of the Investigating Officer.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution appearing for the State of Kerala.

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 Cooperative 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 ₹25 lakh and the said sum was misappropriated. Thereafter, again ₹25 lakh was obtained as loan and now, ₹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 ADGP 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. On perusal of the prosecution records, the prosecution case is that the accused herein hatched conspiracy in between them in continuation of the same, they obtained membership bearing No.18637 in the name of the complainant without his knowledge and consent by committing forgery and thereafter, they filed a forged application for a loan in his name, offering the security of the 1 st accused, and thereafter, a loan was granted vide SLM No.3929 for ₹25 lakh and the said sum was misappropriated. Thereafter, again ₹25 lakh was obtained as loan and now, ₹50 lakh along with interest thereof is outstanding to the Society. The question is whether, in such a case, the petitioners would deserve anticipatory bail.

8. While considering the grant of bail to the petitioners, it could be gathered that the allegations are serious. That is to say, the accused as part of conspiracy hatched in between them, forged application form for getting membership in the name of the complainant and again forged loan applications and other records in the name of the complainant and availed two loans of ₹25 lakh each. Thereby, the accused persons obtained undue pecuniary advantage, causing corresponding loss to the Society and, in turn,