B.A.No.3036 of 2025 1 2025:KER:28080 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 3036 OF 2025 CRIME NO.70/2025 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1: S.RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 52 YEARS S/O SIVADASAN, RESIDING AT DARSANA, MAYYANAD P.O., MAYYANAD CHERRY, MAYYANAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691303 BY ADVS. M.T.SURESHKUMAR MANJUSHA K SONA VIJAYAN K. EJAZ AZHAR RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV. PP – SRI. G SUDHEER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.3036 of 2025 2 2025:KER:28080 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.3036 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 02nd day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.70/2025 of Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 & 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 23/03/2019, four relatives of the 1st accused, the then Secretary of the Mayyanadu Service Cooperative bank availed a loan for an amount of 40 lakhs by pledging the property of Revi Raj, the ₹ nephew of the 1st accused. The de facto complainant took charge as the secretary of the Cooperative society on 23/08/2023 along with new administrative committee. On verification it was B.A.No.3036 of 2025 3 2025:KER:28080 revealed that 4 relatives of the 1st accused namely Sunil Kumar, Abhinand, Neena and Pramod availed loan for an amount of 10 ₹ lakhs each by pledging a property which was transferred by the wife of the 1st accused to Revi Raj. It is further alleged that a loan for an amount of 40 lakhs has been sanctioned in the ₹ name of Revi Raj on 07/03/2019 and the said sanctioning letter by the former president of the Cooperative Bank Sri. Sugathan was obtained. Since Revi Raj had already availed an amount of 10 lakhs as loan his name was avoided and by using the ₹ sanctioning letter dated 07/03/2019, 10 lakhs each was availed ₹ by the aforesaid relatives of the 1st accused. It is further alleged that on 09/03/2019 the loan application was prepared by the 1st accused in his own handwriting and by using his user code made entries in the computer software regarding the loan transactions. It is further alleged that the 1st accused had transferred an amount of 39,76,491/- from the SB account of ₹ Sunil Kumar and transferred into the account of the 1st accused and had misappropriated the said loan amount. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the B.A.No.3036 of 2025 4 2025:KER:28080 petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. The counsel submitted that the prosecution has no case that adequate security is not furnished by the person who availed the loan. Simply because the loan amount is credited to the account of the petitioner which also through cheque transaction, the offence is not made out. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 5. When this bail application came up for consideration on 11.03.2025, this Court passed the following order: “The petitioner will surrender before the Investigating Officer on 14.03.2025. The Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioner. Petitioner shall not be arrested. After interrogation, the Investigating Officer will submit a report before this Court whether further custody of the petitioner is necessary. Post on 19.03.2025.” 6. Thereafter, when the matter came up for consideration on 19.03.2025, this Court passed the following order: B.A.No.3036 of 2025 5 2025:KER:28080 “The Public Prosecutor submitted that, as per order dated 11.03.2025, the petitioner surrendered before the Investigating Officer. But, the interrogation is not complete and the specimen writings of the petitioner is necessary. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, he will again appear before the Investigating Officer. If that is the case, the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer once again on 24.03.2025. The Investigating Officer can do the needful to complete the Investigation. The petitioner shall not be arrested till the next posting date. Post on 28.03.2025.” 7. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation and his custodial interrogation is necessary. Simply because an accused is not cooperating with the investigation, this Court cannot deny bail to the petitioner. But, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case in which orders u/s.482 BNSS can be passed. At this stage the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will surrender before the Investigating Officer. The counsel also submitted that there may be a direction to B.A.No.3036 of 2025 6 2025:KER:28080 produce the petitioner after interrogation before the jurisdictional court and there may be a direction to the jurisdictional court to consider the bail application on the date of production of the petitioner. I think that prayer can be allowed. 8. Considering the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, this bail application is disposed of with the following directions. 1) The petitioner will surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today. 2) If the petitioner surrender before the Investigating Officer as directed above, the Investigating Officer is free to interrogate the petitioner and shall produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself. 3) The petitioner is free to file a bail application before the jurisdictional court at the time of producing him before the jurisdictional court. If such a bail application is filed with advance copy to the prosecutor concerned, the jurisdictional court will consider that bail application in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in it preferably on the date of filing of the same itself. B.A.No.3036 of 2025 7 2025:KER:28080 4) The Investigating Officer is free to file custody application, if necessary, at the time of producing the petitioner and if such an application is filed, the jurisdictional court is free to pass appropriate orders in it also. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE DM