ORDER : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. This is the 2 nd application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sasnhita, 2023, by the petitioners, who are accused Nos.30 to 32 in Crime No.165/2021 of CBCID, Thrissur. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Here, the prosecution allegation is that, accused Nos.1 to 37 have committed offences punishable under Sections 406 , 408, 417, 418, 420, 409, 465, 468, 471, 423, 477A, 201 and 120B r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 13(1)(a) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 . 4. The prosecution case is that the accused herein hatched conspiracy and as an outcome of the same, they obtained membership bearing No.18637 in the name of the complainant without his knowledge and consent in Karuvannur Service Co-operative Society and thereafter, filed an application for a loan in his name, offering the security of the 1 st accused, and thereafter, a loan was granted vide SLM No.3929 for Rs. 25 lakh and the said sum was misappropriated. Thereafter, again Rs. 25 lakh was obtained as loan and now, Rs. 50 lakh along with interest thereof is outstanding to the Society. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out the age of the accused persons while canvassing anticipatory bail. According to him, the petitioners are innocent and they are ready to co-operate with the investigation. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that the allegations against them are grave and that their arrest, custodial interrogation, taking of specimen signatures, and recovery of the money are necessary, and in such circumstances, the grant of anticipatory bail would impede the investigation. 7. In this matter, earlier, the petitioners herein have filed B.A.No.13766/2025 seeking anticipatory bail and as per Annexure 2 order dated 02.12.2025, this Court dismissed the said bail application mainly on the ground that arrest, custodial interrogation, and collection of specimen signatures were necessary for the purpose of investigation and alleged recovery of details relating to the misappropriation, with direction to the petitioners/accused to surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith. Paragraph Nos.3 to 9 of B.A.No.13766/2025 are relevant and are extracted as under: “3. Paragraph Nos.3 to 9 of B.A.No.13766/2025 are relevant and are extracted as under: “3. Here, the prosecution allegation is that, accused Nos.1 to 37 have committed offences punishable under Sections 406 , 408, 417, 418, 420, 409, 465, 468, 471, 423, 477A, 201 and 120B r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC ’ hereinafter) and under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter) and Section 13(1)(a) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short, ‘the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018’ hereinafter). 4. The prosecution case is that the accused herein hatched conspiracy and as an outcome of the same, they obtained membership bearing No.18637 in the name of the complainant without his knowledge and consent in Karuvannur Service Co-operative Society and thereafter, filed an application for a loan in his name, offering the security of the 1 st accused, and thereafter, a loan was granted vide SLM No.3929 for Rs. 25 lakh and the said sum was misappropriated. Thereafter, again Rs. 25 lakh was obtained as loan and now, Rs. 50 lakh along with interest thereof is outstanding to the Society. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out the age of the accused persons while canvassing anticipatory bail. According to him, the petitioners are innocent and they are ready to co-operate with the investigation. 6. The learned ADGP strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that the allegations against them are grave and that their arrest, custodial interrogation, taking of specimen signatures, and recovery of the money are necessary, and in such circumstances, the grant of anticipatory bail would impede the investigation. 7. On perusal of the prosecution records, the prosecution case is that the accused herein hatched conspiracy in between them in continuation of the same, they obtained membership bearing No.18637 in the name of the complainant without his knowledge and consent by committing forgery and thereafter, they filed a forged application for a loan in his name, offering the security of the 1 st accused, and thereafter, a loan was granted vide SLM No.3929 for Rs. 25 lakh and the said sum was misappropriated. Thereafter, again Rs. 25 lakh was obtained as loan and now, Rs. 50 lakh along with interest thereof is outstanding to the Society. 25 lakh and the said sum was misappropriated. Thereafter, again Rs. 25 lakh was obtained as loan and now, Rs. 50 lakh along with interest thereof is outstanding to the Society. The question is whether, in such a case, the petitioners would deserve anticipatory bail. 8. While considering the grant of bail to the petitioners, it could be gathered that the allegations are serious. That is to say, the accused as part of conspiracy hatched in between them, forged application form for getting membership in the name of the complainant and again forged loan applications and other records in the name of the complainant and availed two loans of Rs. 25 lakh each. Thereby, the accused persons obtained undue pecuniary advantage, causing corresponding loss to the Society and, in turn, to its depositors, who have now lost the savings achieved during their whole lifetime. 9. It is relevant to note that altogether 20 cases registered involving crores of rupees as under: 1. Cr.165/CB/TSR/R/21, 2.Cr.240/CB/TSR/21, 3.Cr.241/CB/TSR/D/21, 4.Cr.242/CB/TSR/21, 5.Cr.243/CB/TSR/D/21, 6.Cr.247/CB/TSR/D/21, 7.Cr.248/CB/TSR/D/21, 8. Cr, 249/CB/TSR/D/21, 9. Cr. 252/CB/TSR/D/21, 10. Cr.253/CB/TSR/D/21, 11.Cr.254/CB/TSR/D/21, 12.Cr.302/CB/TSR/21, 13.Cr.313/CB/TSR/D/21, 14.Cr.18/CB/TSR/D/22, 15.Cr.25/CB/TSR/D/22, 16.Cr.29/CB/TSR/D/22, 17.Cr.30/CB/TSR/D/22 18.Cr.49/CB/TSR/R/22, 19.Cr.25/CB/TSR/R/24, 20.Cr.1322/CB/TSR/R/25” 8. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition challenging the order passed by this Court in B.A.No.13766/2025; however, when it was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the said Special Leave Petition was later withdrawn and accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, as per Annexure 3 order in SLP (Crl.)No.20448/2025, dated 05.01.2026. The operative portion of the order reads as under: “After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners seek permission to withdraw the present petitions. 2. Having regard to the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed as withdrawn. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 9. Today, the learned senior counsel argued that during the period of scam, the petitioners were not the Directors. But the documents produced, though its authenticity is a matter to be verified, would show that the petitioners are the Directors during 2011, which covers the period of scam. Repayment of Rs. 25 lakh is another point argued to contend that no culpability would attract against the petitioners. In fact, repayment of a portion of the misappropriated amount in a multiple scam which involved crores of rupees would not absolve the criminal liability. Repayment of Rs. 25 lakh is another point argued to contend that no culpability would attract against the petitioners. In fact, repayment of a portion of the misappropriated amount in a multiple scam which involved crores of rupees would not absolve the criminal liability. In view of the dismissal of the earlier application for anticipatory bail as per Annexure 2 order, wherein the nature and gravity of the allegations as well as the requirement of arrest and custodial interrogation for the purpose of investigation were taken into consideration, and since no substantial change in circumstances is brought to the notice of this Court thereafter, the present application is also liable to be dismissed for the very same reasons stated in Annexure - 2 order of this Court. In the result, this bail application stands dismissed, directing the petitioners herein/accused to surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith, failing which, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to arrest the petitioners herein/accused and proceed with the case, in accordance with law. The attitude of the Investigating Officer in not arresting the accused even after dismissal of their anticipatory bail plea by this Court and by the Hon’ble Apex Court, is noted with extreme displeasure and therefore, Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the DGP (Director General of Police), Thiruvananthapuram, forthwith for appropriate steps in this regard.