Kerala High Court
N. Basurangan vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2026
2026:KER:15130
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 30TH MAGHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 552 OF 2026
CRIME NO.1032/2024 OF CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
N. BASURANGAN
AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN
RESIDING AT 'BHASURA', MARANALLOOR P.O., KOOVALASSERY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695512
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN
SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR
SHRI.T.K.SANDEEP
SMT.SWETHA R.
SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN P.B.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH A,
SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2026, THE COURT ON 19.02.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 2
CR
ORDER
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2026
This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the
petitioner, who is the 1st accused in Crime No.1032/2024 of
Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram, where the prosecution
alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections
120B, 201, 406, 409, 420, 465 and 475 of the Indian Penal
Code and under Section 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988, by the accused persons.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the 1 st
accused, being the elected President of Kandala Service Co-
operative Society T No.197 of Thiruvananthapuram District,
and accused Nos.2 to 5, who served as Secretaries of the
bank during the period from 2005 to 2022, along with
accused Nos.6 to 17, who were the elected members of the
Board of Directors during the said period, being public
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 3
servants, with the intention to deceive the depositors,
conspired together and floated various deposit schemes by
offering exorbitant rates of interest without obtaining
sanction from the Co-operative Registrar. Thereafter, in
contravention of the existing statutory provisions, the
accused indulged in unauthorised appointment of staff,
unauthorised constructions, grant of loans to their
henchmen without obtaining proper collateral securities,
diversion of funds to Maranalloor Milk Co-operative Society,
and other unauthorised acts. These overt acts resulted in
bankruptcy of the Society, and consequently the deposits
entrusted with the accused were misappropriated by them
for their own use. The total amount eroded due to the acts of
the accused comes to ₹1,01,00,67,858 (Rupees One hundred
and one crore sixty-seven thousand eight hundred and fifty-
eight only).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 4
anticipatory bail on the submission that the petitioner is
innocent and he is aged 71 years. According to the learned
counsel, the petitioner got involved in 66 cases, and one
among the same is a case registered by the ED. The
petitioner had been in custody for a substantial period in the
said crime, though he was granted regular bail later. Then,
he was granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in some cases. Thus, by offering co-operation in the matter
of investigation, the learned counsel counsel for the
petitioner pressed for relief of pre-arrest bail to the
petitioner.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed
bail and zealously urged the necessity of custodial
interrogation of the petitioner, in a case involving a very
gigantic amount of misappropriation.
5. The contentions raised by the prosecution as
could be seen from paragraph Nos.4 to 14 of the statement
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 5
filed by the Investigating Officer are as under:
“4. Kandala Service Co-operative Bank Ltd
No T.197 was registered under Kerala Co-
operative Societies Act 1969 and is situated at
Kandala in Neyyattinkara Taluk of
Thiruvananthapuram District. Serious
allegations of misappropriation and payment
default to the investors led to the registration
of 66 cases at Maranalloor Police Station
within Thiruvananthapuram Rural District
from 01/07/2023 to till date. All these cases
are registered upon individual complaints of
account holders except this case. This case
was registered on 26/07/2024 at
Maranalloor Police Station on the basis of the
report of Joint Registrar (General) of Co-
Operative Society. The Petitioner was the
Elected President of the Kandala Co-
Operative Bank for the last 30 years and he is
the prime accused in all these cases.
5. State Police Chief vide Order No.D3-
167265/2023/PHQ, dtd.09.10.2023 and Order
No: D3-167265/2023/PHQ dated 04/07/2024,
have transferred investigation of all these
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 6cases to Crime Branch CID. Accordingly, all
these cases are re-registered at Crime Branch
Police Station (Headquarters) and thereafter
forwarded to CBCU-IV, Thiruvananthapuram
for investigation.
6. In consequences of the registration of
crimes against the petitioner at Maranalloor
P.S. during the year 2023, the petitioner
approached the Hon. High Court of Kerala for
filing anticipatory bail applications in Crime
No.726/23,727/23,744/23,747/23,748/23 and
754/23 (Crime Branch
Cr.3050/23,3051/23,3052/23,3053/23,3054/
23 and 3055/23) and which came to be
dismissed by a common order dated
21/12/2023, where upon the petitioner filed
SLP (Special Leave Petition) (crl) No.403 to
408 of 2024 before the Honourable Supreme
Court of India.
The Honourable Supreme Court of
India by order dated 25/02/2025 granted
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the above
six cases. On the basis of the bail conditions
the petitioner appeared before the
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 7Investigation Officer and arrest recorded and
bailed the petitioner.
7. Moreover, the Audit and Enquiries
conducted by the Co-operative Department
under The Kerala Co-operative Societies Act
1969 reveals that Rs. 101,00,67,858 were
misappropriated by the accused together
which results in bankruptcy. A1, Basurangan,
the President of Society who was at the
realms of Kandala Service Co-operative Bank
Ltd No.197, with the connivance of other
accused floated various schemes of deposits
by offering exorbitant interest rates without
the sanction of Co-operative Registrar. The
money thus collected was siphoned to his
relatives and friends by way of loans without
proper collaterals. Al, without obtaining
sanction from the Registrar and in
contravention Circular No.18/91 of Registrar
of Co-operative Society with regard to the
recruitment for appointment of employees in
Co-operative Institutions appointed his
henchmen and paid them high salaries which
also led to the downfall of Bank. Rupees 85
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 8Lakhs was diverted to Maranalloor Milk Co-
operative Society in which Al is holding the
post of President without sanction from
Competent Authorities. Enquiries conducted
U/s 65 & 68(1) of Kerala Co-operatives
Societies Act 1969 reveals wide spread
corruption, misappropriation, nepotism and
diversion of funds.
8. In continuation of the Sec.65 Enquiry
under the Co-operative Societies Act 1969,
Surcharge under 68(1) of Co-operative
Societies Act 1969 revealed that the wrongful
actions and inactions from the part of the
Petitioner has caused a loss of
Rs.51,11,3621.64 to the Society and the same is
imposed as the liability of the Petitioner.
9. The unauthorised appointments of his
henchmen without the sanction of Co-
operative Registrar, diversion of funds,
issuance of multiple loans on single
collaterals, non-recovery of dues from loanees
and monthly deposit scheme defaulters are
revealed from the part of Petitioner during
enquiry.
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 9
10. This case and other cases investigated in
this unit are under investigation and the scam
is around Rs. 101 crores dating back from
2002, there requires sufficient time to unearth
the Mystery behind the scam.
11. There are 17 accused in this case, the first
Accused is the petitioner. During the
investigation in cr:-
3062/CB/CU-IV/TVM/R/2023 U/S 409,420
& 34 IPC & Sec. 3 r/w 21, 5 r/w 23 of Buds Act
2019 under this unit investigation officer
Detective Inspector Sherry.A.K arrested the
accused A3 & A5 on 16.12.2025 and produced
before the Hon.Adl.Dist.sessions Court V,
Thiruvananthapuram and they were
remanded. In this case A3 and A5 are formal
arrested on 20/12/2025 and obtained bail
from the Hon.Adl.Dist.sessions Court V,
Thiruvananthapuram. During the
investigation A4 & A14 expired. The
remaining accused are yet to be arrested.
12. The Directorate of Enforcement
registered ECIR bearing
No.ECIR/KCZO/42/2023 against the
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 10petitioner alleging commission of offence
under Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002 and arrested the petitioner on
21.11.2023, and the petitioner was granted
bail by the Honourable High Court of Kerala
on 16/01/2025
13. The petitioner N Basurangan, is an
influential Politician who has been the
President of Kandala Service Co-operative
Bank for the last 30 years. In the event of
petition being allowed it will certainly
hamper effective investigation and the
accused is served with an opportunity to
conceal proceeds of crime which will
jeopardize the efforts of investigating
agencies to unearth the assets accumulated by
the petitioner.
14. Interrogation is highly necessary to
unravel the complete chain of transactions
associated with Kandala Service Co-operative
bank. As the economic offences involve a deep
routed conspiracy, including huge loss of
funds the presence of accused is inevitable for
investigation.”
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 11
6. On perusal of the prosecution allegation in the
present case, the allegation is confined to ₹1,01,00,67,858
(Rupees One hundred and one crore sixty-seven thousand
eight hundred and fifty-eight only) and the prosecution case
specifically is that the accused persons collected and
siphoned money to his relatives and friends without proper
collateral securities and without obtaining sanction from the
Registrar of Co-operative Society. It is alleged further that
in this case, the accused and other accused persons diverted
₹85 Lakh to Maranalloor Milk Co-operative Society where
the 1st accused has been holding the post of President
without sanction from the competent authorities. Enquiries
conducted under Sections 65 and 68(1) of the Kerala Co-
operative Societies Act, 1969 (for short, ‘the Act, 1969’
hereinafter) revealed wide spread corruption,
misappropriation, nepotism and diversion of funds.
7. Similarly, after the enquiry under Sections 65 and
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 12
68(1) of the Act, 1969, it was found that due to wrongful
actions and inaction on the part of the petitioner, a loss of
₹51,11,3621.64 (Rupees Fifty-one crore eleven lakh three
thousand six hundred twenty-one and sixty-four paise only)
is found as the liability of the petitioner. It is also alleged
that unauthorized appointments of henchmen were made
without the sanction of the Registrar of Co-operative
Society, funds were diverted, multiple loans were issued on a
single collateral, dues were not recovered from loanees, and
defaults occurred in the monthly deposit scheme. In such a
case, accused Nos.3 and 5 have been arrested and are in
custody, but others are yet to be arrested.
8. It is noticeable from the report of the
Investigating Officer that in six crimes, the Hon’ble Apex
Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Annexure II is the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 13
9. Here, the allegations specifically is that
₹1,01,00,67,858 (Rupees One hundred and one crore sixty-
seven thousand eight hundred and fifty-eight only) were
misappropriated and the allegations are very serious. As
held in the decision in Serious Fraud Investigation
Office v. Aditya Sarda reported in [2025 INSC 477],
economic offences are a class apart and require custodial
interrogation/investigation and should not routinely attract
anticipatory bail. Paragraph Nos.18 to 23 of the said decision
read as follows:
“18. Now, so far as anticipatory bail is concerned,
this Court has consistently emphasized that
anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter
of routine, particularly in serious economic
offences, involving large scale fraud, public money
or complex financial crimes. In P.
Chidambaram vs. Directorate of
Enforcement, it was observed as under: –
Grant of anticipatory bail in exceptional
cases
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 14
69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of
the investigation to secure not only the
presence of the accused but several other
purposes. Power under Section 438 CrPC is an
extraordinary power and the same has to be
exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-
arrest bail should be granted only in
exceptional cases. The judicial discretion
conferred upon the court has to be properly
exercised after application of mind as to the
nature and gravity of the accusation;
possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and
other factors to decide whether it is a fit case
for grant of anticipatory bail….
70. ……………………………….
71. Article 21 of the Constitution of India states
that no person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure
prescribed by law. However, the power
conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution of
India is not unfettered and is qualified by the
later part of the Article i.e. “…except according
to a procedure prescribed by law”. In State of
M.P. v. Ram KishnaBalothia [State of M.P. v.
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 15
Ram Kishna Balothia, (1995) 3 SCC 221: 1995
SCC (Cri) 439] , the Supreme Court held that
the right of anticipatory bail is not a part of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and held
as under: (SCC p. 226, para 7)
7. … ‘We find it difficult to accept the
contention that Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure is an integral part
of Article 21. In the first place, there was
no provision similar to Section 438 in the
old Criminal Procedure Code. The Law
Commission in its 41st Report
recommended introduction of a
provision for grant of anticipatory bail.
It observed:
We agree that this would be a
useful advantage. Though we
must add that it is in very
exceptional cases that such power
should be exercised.
In the light of this recommendation,
Section 438 was incorporated, for the
first time, in the Criminal Procedure
Code of 1973. Looking to the cautious
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 16recommendation of the Law
Commission, the power to grant
anticipatory bail is conferred only on a
Court of Session or the High Court. Also,
anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a
matter of right. It is essentially a
statutory right conferred long after the
coming into force of the Constitution. It
cannot be considered as an essential
ingredient of Article 21 of the
Constitution. And its non-application to
a certain special category of offences
cannot be considered as violative of
Article 21.
(emphasis supplied)
72. We are conscious of the fact that the
legislative intent behind the introduction of
Section 438 CrPC is to safeguard the
individual’s personal liberty and to protect him
from the possibility of being humiliated and
from being subjected to unnecessary police
custody. However, the court must also keep in
view that a criminal offence is not just an
offence against an individual, rather the larger
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 17societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a
delicate balance is required to be established
between the two rights–safeguarding the
personal liberty of an individual and the
societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal
to grant anticipatory bail would amount to
denial of the rights conferred upon the
appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
73. to 76………………………………
77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v.
State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011)
1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other judgments and
observing that anticipatory bail can be granted
only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai
Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash
Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379 :
(2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] , the Supreme Court
held as under: (SCC p. 386, para 19)
19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory
bail in a serious offence are required to be
satisfied and further while granting such
relief, the court must record the reasons
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 18therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted
only in exceptional circumstances where
the court is prima facie of the view that
the applicant has falsely been enroped in
the crime and would not misuse his
liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T.
Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T.
Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434: (2007) 2
SCC (Cri) 345], State of Maharashtra v.
Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain
[State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid
Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC
213: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of
India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [Union
of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal,
(2008) 13 SCC 305: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri)
1].)
Economic offences
78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an
extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised
sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences.
Economic offences stand as a different class as they
affect the economic fabric of the society. In
Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 19
[Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain,
(1998) 2 SCC 105: 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held
that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled
to anticipatory bail.
19. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation, it was observed as
under: –
34. Economic offences constitute a class apart
and need to be visited with a different
approach in the matter of bail. The economic
offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and
involving huge loss of public funds need to be
viewed seriously and considered as grave
offences affecting the economy of the country
as a whole and thereby posing serious threat
to the financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep
in mind the nature of accusations, the nature
of evidence in support thereof, the severity of
the punishment which conviction will entail,
the character of the accused, circumstances
which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable
possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 20of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of the public/State and other
similar considerations.
20. In Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation, it was observed as
under: –
23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the
country has been seeing an alarming rise in
white-collar crimes, which has affected the
fibre of the country’s economic structure.
Incontrovertibly, economic offences have
serious repercussions on the development of
the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v.
Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [(1987) 2 SCC 364:
1987 SCC (Cri) 364] this Court, while
considering a request of the prosecution for
adducing additional evidence, inter alia,
observed as under: (SCC p. 371, para 5)
5. … The entire community is aggrieved
if the economic offenders who ruin the
economy of the State are not brought to
book. A murder may be committed in
the heat of moment upon passions
being aroused. An economic offence is
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 21committed with cool calculation and
deliberate design with an eye on
personal profit regardless of the
consequence to the community. A
disregard for the interest of the
community can be manifested only at
the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith
of the community in the system to
administer justice in an even-handed
manner without fear of criticism from
the quarters which view whitecollar
crimes with a permissive eye unmindful
of the damage done to the national
economy and national interest.
21. Recently in Srikant Upadhyay and Others
vs. State of Bihar and Another, a very pertinent
observations have been made with regard to the
powers of the Court to grant anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of CrPC. It has been observed that –
9. It is thus obvious from the catena of
decisions dealing with bail that even while
clarifying that arrest should be the last
option and it should be restricted to cases
where arrest is imperative in the facts and
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 22
circumstances of a case, the consistent view
is that the grant of anticipatory bail shall be
restricted to exceptional circumstances. In
other words, the position is that the power to
grant anticipatory bail under Section 438,
Cr. PC is an exceptional power and should be
exercised only in exceptional cases and not
as a matter of course. Its object is to ensure
that a person should not be harassed or
humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or
personal vendetta of the complainant. (See
the decision of this Court in HDFC Bank Ltd.
v. J.J.Mannan & Anr.4).
10. When a Court grants anticipatory bail
what it actually does is only to make an
order that in the event of arrest, the arrestee
shall be released on bail, subject to the terms
and conditions. Taking note of the fact the
said power is to be exercised in exceptional
circumstances and that it may cause some
hindrance to the normal flow of investigation
method when called upon to exercise the
power under Section 438 Cr.PC, courts must
keep reminded of the position that law aides
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 23
only the abiding and certainly not its
resistant. By saying so, we mean that a
person, having subjected to investigation on
a serious offence and upon making out a
case, is included in a charge sheet or even
after filing of a refer report, later, in
accordance with law, the Court issues a
summons to a person, he is bound to submit
himself to the authority of law. It only means
that though he will still be at liberty, rather,
in his right, to take recourse to the legal
remedies available only in accordance with
law, but not in its defiance. We will dilate
this discussion with reference to the factual
matrix of this case. However, we think that
before dealing with the same, a small
deviation to have a glance at the scope and
application of the provisions under Section
82, Cr.PC will not be inappropriate.
11 to 24…………………………
25. We have already held that the power to
grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary
power. Though in many cases it was held
that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 24
any stretch of imagination, be said that
anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the
rule and the question of its grant should be
left to the cautious and judicious discretion
by the Court depending on the facts and
circumstances of each case. While called
upon to exercise the said power, the Court
concerned has to be very cautious as the
grant of interim protection or protection to
the accused in serious cases may lead to
miscarriage of justice and may hamper the
investigation to a great extent as it may
sometimes lead to tampering or distraction
of the evidence. We shall not be understood
to have held that the Court shall not pass an
interim protection pending consideration of
such application as the Section is destined to
safeguard the freedom of an individual
against unwarranted arrest and we say
that such orders shall be passed in
eminently fit cases. At any rate, when
warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued,
the applicant is not entitled to invoke the
extraordinary power. Certainly, this will
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 25
not deprive the power of the Court to grant
pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases
in the interest of justice. But then, person(s)
continuously, defying orders and keep
absconding is not entitled to such grant.
22. In Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of
Bihar and Another, this Court, disapproving the
Order passed by the High Court granting
anticipatory bail to the accused though the
proceedings under Section 82/83 CrPC were
initiated, observed as under: –
10…………………………………
10.1……………………………….
10.2. Despite the above observations on
merits and despite the fact that it was brought
to the notice of the High Court that
Respondent 2- accused is absconding and even
the proceedings under Sections 82/83CrPC
have been initiated as far back as on 10-1-
2019, the High Court has just ignored the
aforesaid relevant aspects and has granted
anticipatory bail to Respondent 2-accused by
observing that the nature of accusation is
arising out of a business transaction. The
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 26
specific allegations of cheating, etc. which
came to be considered by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has not at all been
considered by the High Court. Even the High
Court has just ignored the factum of initiation
of proceedings under Sections 82/83CrPC by
simply observing that “be that as it may”. The
aforesaid relevant aspect on grant of
anticipatory bail ought not to have been
ignored by the High Court and ought to have
been considered by the High Court very
seriously and not casually.
10.3……………………………….
11. Thus, the High Court has committed an
error in granting anticipatory bail to
Respondent 2- accused ignoring the
proceedings under Sections 82/83 Code of
Criminal Procedure.
ANALYSIS:
23. In view of the above settled legal position, it is no
more res integra that economic offences constitute a
class apart, as they have deep rooted conspiracies
involving huge loss of public funds, and therefore such
offences need to be viewed seriously. They are
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 27considered as grave and serious offences affecting the
economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing
serious threats to the financial health of the country.
The law aids only the abiding and certainly not its
resistants. When after the investigation, a chargesheet
is submitted in the court, or in a complaint case,
summons or warrant is issued to the accused, he is
bound to submit himself to the authority of law. If he is
creating hindrances in the execution of warrants or is
concealing himself and does not submit to the authority
of law, he must not be granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail, particularly when the Court taking
cognizance has found him prima facie involved in
serious economic offences or heinous offences. In such
cases when the court has reason to believe that the
person against whom the warrant has been issued has
absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant
could not be executed, the concerned court would be
perfectly justified in initiating the proclamation
proceedings against him under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The
High Courts should also consider the factum of issuance
of non-bailable warrants and initiation of proclamation
proceedings seriously and not casually, while
considering the anticipatory bail application of such
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 28
accused.”
10. Economic offences of this nature are of special
significance, and the specific need of the prosecution and the
investigating agency to conduct custodial interrogation of
the petitioner for the purposes espoused is significant, as
stated in paragraph 14 of the statement filed by the
Investigating Officer. Most importantly, the facts of this
particular case would prima facie show misappropriation of
more than Hundred Crores, where the petitioner is the
prime accused. If the prime accused involved in a huge
scam/economic offence is granted anticipatory bail, effective
investigation could not be materialised, as apprehended by
the prosecution.
11. In such a case, the grant of anticipatory bail
would definitely hamper the investigation. In view of the
particular facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner, since the same would
B.A.NO.552 OF 2026 29
destroy the investigation. Therefore, this petition is liable to
fail and is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be a direction to the petitioner to surrender
before the Investigating Officer forthwith, and on failure to
do so, the Investigating Officer shall proceed against the
petitioner in accordance with law to effectuate meaningful
investigation with a view to accomplish successful
prosecution.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb
