AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is the third bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS), seeking pre-arrest bail.
The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime No.758/2026 of Kothamangalam Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant was employed as a staff member in Bharath Lajhna Multi State Housing Co-operative Society and she along with the other accused with a wrongful intention transferred funds from the society's Axis Bank account No.920010019338556 to the account of the applicant through cheques on various occasions. On 03/04/2021, the applicant transferred a sum of 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten lakhs) and on 16/10/2021 transferred a further sum of 25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty five lakhs). The applicant in furtherance of a common intention with the other accused caused wrongful financial loss to the complainant and thereby committed the offence of cheating.
I have heard Sri. Simon A Muthalaly, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri. T. Shihabudeen, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri. V.Vinay, the learned Senior 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 present case. 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 Senior 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. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that two pre-arrest bail applications filed by the applicant on previous occasions were dismissed on merits and the present pre-arrest bail application has been filed absolutely without any change in circumstances and by suppressing about the dismissal of the second bail application. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant has criminal antecedents. It has also been suppressed in the present bail application.
The law regarding the grant or refusal of prearrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power under Section 482 of BNSS could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. Perusal of the case diary reveals that the accusation made against the applicant is very serious in nature, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on her part.
The first pre-arrest bail application was disposed of by this Court as per Annexure A2 order, granting liberty to the applicant to appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation. In the said order, there is a specific finding that the accusation made against the applicant is very serious in nature, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on her part. However, the applicant was permitted to appear before the investigating officer. The report filed by the investigating officer would show that the applicant appeared before the investigating officer on 23.07.2026. After interrogation, she was served with a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, directing her to appear again on 29.07.2026 at 10:00 a.m. However, the applicant did not appear before the investigating officer as directed, instead, she preferred a second pre-arrest bail application as B.A.No.4446 of 2026. The said bail application was dismissed by this Court on merits as per the order dated 19.08.2026. Again the applicant has approached this Court a third time by filing the above bail application, suppressing the filing and dismissal of the second bail application. It is pertinent to note that the second bail application was filed through the very same counsel who appears in this bail application. That apart, the applicant has criminal antecedents. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that she is involved in two other crimes. However, in paragraph 13 of this bail application, it is stated that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. All these acts clearly show that the applicant deliberately attempted to mislead this Court by suppressing the antecedents and also suppressing the dismissal of the earlier bail application. This third pre-arrest bail application has been filed absolutely without any change of circumstance. It is frivolous and misconceived.
Accordingly, this Bail Application is dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), which shall be deposited by the applicant before the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA) within a period of ten days, failing which, the Member Secretary, KeLSA, is directed to initiate appropriate legal action to realise the same.