Linumol Lalu vs State Of Kerala And Anr

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

The applicant is the 1st accused in Crime No.132/2019 of Kannur Town Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable

under Sections 420, 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant, who had allegedly intended to start a computerised embroidery business and applied for a loan

before the Chalad Branch of the Syndicate Bank and dishonestly induced the bank to advance a sum of Rs.3,52,000/- as working capital for a total

loan of Rs.11,48,000/- on 10.04.2012. Instead of starting the business as per the proposal, she started the same nature of business in a different locality

with a different name and thus cheated the bank. When the bank proceeded against her before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for the realisation of the

amount and obtained an attachment of movable assets available in the premises, she allegedly in furtherance of common intention, trespassed into the

property and stole all the movables, which was seized by the bank and thus committed theft from inside the building.

The applicant submits that she is innocent and the allegations are not true. She belongs to Alappuzha and was married to Kannur, that is where she

intended to start the business with all bona fide belief to make her livelihood. But unfortunately, her marital life was not successful, she got divorced

and returned to her native place and the business had to be abandoned. Accused 2 and 3, who are persons in the locality, allegedly committed the

offence without her knowledge or consent. She was not present in the scene of occurrence, and therefore, she may be granted anticipatory bail.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned Counsel for the de facto complainant-Bank and the learned Public Prosecutor.

It is true that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. But the manner in which she had perpetrated the crime in furtherance of common intention

with accused 2 and 3 indicates the criminal proclivity she had to get over the attachment of the assets for which she had borrowed an amount from

the Syndicate Bank.

Under the above circumstances, she is definitely not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail. She is therefore directed to surrender

before the investigating officer within three weeks. In the event of her being arrested, after interrogation and recovery, if any, she shall be produced

before the jurisdictional court, where she is at liberty to apply for regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the very same

day, considering the eligibility of the applicant to seek the benefit available under the proviso to Section 437 of Cr.P.C.