Kerala High Court Declines Anticipatory Bail Plea Of Co-Accused In BSNL Co-Operative Society Scam Case

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a 59-year-old lady who was alleged to be the close accomplice of the prime accused in the BSNL Co-Operative Society scam. 

Justice C.S. Dias was of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail considering that the investigation is in progress and that her custodial interrogation is necessary. 

"On an anxious consideration of the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the offence alleged against the petitioner, that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary and that the investigation is in progress, I am of the definite view that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.438 of the Code," the Court observed. 

The prosecution case is that the President of the BSNL Engineers Co-operative Society (1st accused) and other accused persons misappropriated an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- from the de facto complainant's mother on the promise that the 1st accused could accept deposits and pay interest. The sums amounting to Rs. 270 Crores that were received from various depositors were however misappropriated by the accused persons. 

The petitioner was booked as the 17th accused in the scam, and alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 408 ('Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant'), 409 ('Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent'), 420 ('Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property'), 120B ('Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy'), 468 ('Forgery for purpose of cheating'), 471 ('Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record'), 477A ('Falsification of accounts') r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 ('Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes') r/w 21 (Punishment for contravention of Section 3), 5 ('Wrongful inducement in relation to Unregulated Deposit Schemes') r/w 23 (Punishment for contravention of Section 5) & 25 ('Offences by deposit takers other than individuals') of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act.

Advocate M.R. Sasith submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the latter was innocent of the allegations, and that she had been made an accused only on the assertion that she had a relationship with the 1st accused. 

Senior Public Prosecutor C.S. Hrithwik however argued that the petitioner was the mastermind behind the crime and that since the invesitgation was in process at the present stage, she could hamper the same if she were granted anticipatory bail at this juncture. 

Taking note of the materials on record and the gravity of the offence, the Court was of the opinion that the petitioner could not be granted anticipatory bail, and thereby dismissed the plea. 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 85

Case Title: Santhakumari Amma N. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 

Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 11038 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Order