Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused In Angamaly Co-op Scam; Criticizes Investigating Officer For Not Making Arrests
The Kerala High Court has denied grant anticipatory bail to three of the accused persons (petitioners) in the money scam case of Angamaly Urban Co-operative Society.
Justice A. Badharudeen also expressed displeasure regarding the attitude of the Investigating Officer, who had not yet arrested the petitioners even though their earlier bail applications were dismissed in October 2024.
The Court opined that this was a very serious crime and that the inaction of the officer would have an adverse effect on the investigation of the same.
A direction was given to the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer. Further, in the event of failure of surrender by the petitioners, the Investigating Officer was also directed to effectuate meaningful investigation by recording the arrest of the petitioners.
A common order was passed in the three bail pleas preferred by accused nos. 5, 8 and 13 in the case.
The offences against the accused persons include those under Sections 406 [Criminal breach of trust], 408[Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant], 417[Cheating], 465[Forgery], 467[Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.], 468[Forgery for purpose of cheating], 471[Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record], 420[Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property] read with 34[Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention] of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) [Criminal misconduct by a public servant] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that one of the co-accused in the case, T.V. Benny, was granted anticipatory bail by the Court. It was also submitted that the petitioners were of advanced age and that there were change in circumstances subsequent to the denial of their previous bail applications.
Opposing the plea, the ADGP (Addl. Director General of Prosecution) submitted that during the investigation, it was found that T.V. Benny had not signed the minutes of the meeting, where fake loans were granted and that he even expressed descent regarding the same. For the said reason, the arrest and custodial interrogation of T.V. Benny were not found necessary and accordingly, his anticipatory bail application was not opposed by the prosecution. Moreover, there is no change in circumstance since the dismissal of the last bail pleas.
The Court was of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners were necessary taking into consideration the seriousness of the offences alleged and the stage of the investigation. It observed:
“Going through the available materials, the investigation involving huge scam of money, is at the primary stage. Therefore, the arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioners are very much essential to effectuate meaningful investigation. In such contingency, anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the petitioners, moved for the second time could not be allowed. Therefore, the bail applications must fail.”
Thus, the bail applications were dismissed.
Background
A crime was registered alleging that the petitioners, who were members of the Managing Committee of Angamaly Urban Co-operative Society, abused their position and misappropriated a sum of Rs.55 Crores that belonged to the Society. The allegation is that the same was done with an intention to cause undue loss to the Society and by sanctioning fake loans and renewal of the loans by using the same documents in the name of fake persons. During the course of investigation, it has been revealed that the total money misappropriated was to the tune of Rs.115.8 Crores.
Anticipatory bail applications were filed by the petitioners earlier before the High Court but the same were dismissed noting that the allegations were serious and that the role and benefit derived by each of the accused persons are yet to be unearthed in the investigation. However, the accused persons were not arrested even though their bail applications were dismissed.
Case No: Bail Application No. 3177 of 2025 and Connected cases
Case Title: P.C. Tomy v. State of Kerala & Anr. and Connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 358
Counsels for the Applicants: B. Raman Pillai (Sr.), R. Anil, Sujesh Menon V.B., Thomas Sabu Vadakekut, Mahesh Bhanu S., Ressil Lonan, Joel George Kampiyil, Ananth Krishna K.S., S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, Sarath K.P., M.S. Aneer, K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Jeswin P. Varghese
Counsel for the Respondents: Sr. PP for ADGP – C.K Suresh; Athul Roy, P.A. Martin Roy for R2.
