The high court said that the grant of anticipatory bail would frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused.
Published Dec 22, 2023 | 4:12 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 22, 2023 | 4:12 PM
Kandala Service Cooperative Bank. (Facebook)
The Kerala High Court, on Thursday, 21 December, denied anticipatory bails to expelled CPI leader N Bhasurangan and another person who is accused of siphoning off several crores of rupees from the Kandala Services Cooperative Bank, saying their custodial interrogation would be necessary for a proper probe into the allege fraud.
Justice Mohammed Nias CP said that as per the Supreme Court, cases of economic offences must be treated differently from other crimes due to their very nature.
The high court said that the grant of anticipatory bail would frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and collecting useful information and materials that might have been concealed.
“Grant of anticipatory bail, therefore, in such economic offences would certainly hamper an effective investigation. The charges being multiple, I do not think that this is a case where section 438 (anticipatory bail) CrPC can be invoked,” the judge said.
The court also noted that there was an apprehension of evidence being tampered with and witnesses being influenced or intimidated by the two accused — Bhasurangan and Baiju Rajan RK — who were the president and secretary of the bank.
The court said, “Given the allegation against the petitioners (accused) that the entire amount of money was dealt and misappropriated by the accused and that the transactions include crores of rupees, the arrest, custodial interrogation and details regarding how the money was dealt with are very much essential for a proper investigation.
“Their responsibility in collecting deposits and misappropriating the same could not be treated lightly to enlarge them on pre-arrest bail,” it said.
The details of the amount collected, where the money has been parked, etc., were inevitable parts of an impartial investigation to lead to a meaningful prosecution and therefore, granting anticipatory bail in these cases “would certainly defeat that objective”.
The prosecution had opposed the anticipatory bail pleas stating that huge misappropriation had taken place, which calls for a proper investigation.
The petitioners, seeking anticipatory bail in the fraud cases against them, told the court that the bank has a deposit of about ₹112 crores and a loan outstanding of more than ₹70 crores.
Besides that, from the monthly deposit scheme (MDS), more than ₹34 crores was due to the bank, they had claimed.
In addition to that, more than ₹27 crore was liable to be recovered from arbitration cases and around ₹10 crore from execution petitions, they had told the court.
They had also said that about ₹6 crore was due from the state government also.
(Disclaimer: The headline, subheads, and intro of this report along with the photos may have been reworked by South First. The rest of the content is from a syndicated feed, and has been edited for style.)
