Mable Mary vs State Of Kerala & Anr.

These applications are connected and hence they are disposed of by a common order. They are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre-arrest bail.

B.A. No.5351 of 2026 pertains to Crime No.770 of 2026, B.A. No.5352 of 2026 pertains to Crime No.759 of 2026, B.A. No.5353 of 2026 pertains to Crime No.758 of 2026 of Ernakulam Central Police Station, Ernakulam District. In all the above crimes, the applicant is arrayed as the accused No.3. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 406, 420, 463, 464, 465, 467 and 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The applicant is stated to be one of the Directors of M/s. Maymo Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., a Direct Selling Agent, which has been arrayed as the accused No.1. She is the former wife of the accused No.2, who is the Managing Director of the accused No.1 company. The accused No.1 company has been empanelled with the Indian Bank, M.G. Road Branch, Ernakulam. All the crimes were registered on the basis of the complaint preferred by the Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, M.G. Road Branch, Ernakulam. The prosecution case, in short, is that, the accused No.1 company through its Directors, the applicant and the accused No.2, and in connivance with the remaining accused, facilitated housing loans by submitting forged documents, causing wrongful loss to the bank and thus committed the offences.

I have heard Sri.Jerie Ramesh, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.Thomas Sabu Vadakekut, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

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

Though the period of transaction varies in each cases, essentially it was between the period from December, 2021 to 21.12.2024. The documents produced along with the bail applications would show that the applicant and the accused No.2 dissolved their marriage by filing a joint divorce petition before the Family Court, Ernakulam in O.P. No.421/2022. The divorce was effected on 30.03.2022. Even before that, on 07.02.2022, the applicant resigned from Directorship of the Company and it was accepted also. In the notice issued by the bank to the applicant, her status was shown as ‘erstwhile Director’. So at the time of the alleged transactions, the applicant had no connection whatsoever, with the accused No.1 company. Considering the allegations made against the applicant, her custodial interrogation seems unnecessary. For these reasons, I find these to be appropriate cases to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

In the result, these applications are allowed on the following conditions:-