ORDER : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. This is an application for anticipatory bail led by the petitioner in Crime No. 1085 of 2025, registered by the Kollam West police station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’), and later offences are corrected as under Sections 406, 420, and 468 of IPC on finding that the offences were committed before April 2024. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant who is impleaded as the additional 2 nd respondent, and also the learned counsel for one of two beneficiaries got impleaded as additional 3rd, and 4th respondents in this case by allowing their petitions. 3. Reading the FIR, the prosecution allegation is that the accused herein, who worked as the Secretary of Kollam Co-operative Building Society Q157 (for short, ‘the Society’ hereinafter), obtained unlawful enrichment on getting deposits from third parties for and on behalf of the Society, and misappropriated the same without depositing the same in the Society. When the so-called persons demanded back their money, the accused issued twelve cheques to those persons by forging the signature of the President therein, who is the de facto complainant in this case, and also by putting her signature since the cheque of the Society would be honoured only when signed by the President and Secretary. The amount misappropriated by the petitioner as per the allegations in the FIR is Rs.70,74,500/-. During the investigation, it was brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer that apart from the IPC offences, offence under Section 13(1) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, also is committed by the petitioner, and accordingly the investigation is now going on inclusive of the above offences. Further request was given to the Vigilance to take over the case. 4. While pressing for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner read over various documents produced along with the Bail Application and also the minutes of the Society including other documents produced subsequently to contend that the Society has been running in loss and the Society has been trailing to return the money to the depositors. Accordingly, in order to pay the amount to the depositors, deposits were collected from various persons including the relatives of the Secretary and Director Board Members. That apart, Rs.25 lakh was deposited by one Abhijith who expressed to deposit Rs.50 lakh on the condition of providing a job for him in the Society. He pointed out further that, as per the WhatsApp communication between the Secretary and the President, copy of the same has been produced, various loans were granted, and deposits were returned as instructed by the President. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as could be read out from the records produced, the petitioner is bound to obey the instructions of the President, and accordingly, she acted upon the instructions. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out Section 106 of the Cooperative Societies Act in this regard. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that, in the instant case, none of the offences would attract against the petitioner, and if at all, any involvement of the petitioner is found, the same could not be found independently without the involvement of the de facto complainant. Therefore, the de facto complainant also to be made as an accused in the facts of the case. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is under treatment as per Annexure – A9 certificate issued by Subash D, Orthopedic Junior Consultant, District Hospital, Mavelikkara, and therefore, the medical condition of the petitioner also may be considered, when considering her plea for pre-arrest bail. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that, if the petitioner is granted bail, then also she is ready to co-operate with the investigation, and no substantial change if she would be detained in custody otherwise. 6. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant, who is the President of the Society, argued that on 07.05.2025, the petitioner, who was the Secretary, made an application seeking leave for ten days with effect from 08.05.2025 and the same was granted. 6. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant, who is the President of the Society, argued that on 07.05.2025, the petitioner, who was the Secretary, made an application seeking leave for ten days with effect from 08.05.2025 and the same was granted. After the expiry of leave, she did not turn up for employment, and subsequent enquiry by the President revealed that the accused obtained money from various persons on the premise of depositing the same in the Society by issuing forged certificate and receipts and thereby the accused misappropriated Rs.70,74,500/- as the said amount found to be lacking as per the audit report. Thereafter, in order to discharge the said liability, she issued twelve cheques by forging the signature of the President, who is the de facto complainant in this case. According to the learned counsel for the de facto complainant, the persons in whose favour the cheques were issued had already filed complaints before the police for investigating the above matter, and registration of those crimes is on the anvil. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that the matter would require effective investigation by questioning the petitioner in custody, who misappropriated a huge amount to unearth the seriousness of the allegation, and therefore, anticipatory bail could not be granted. 7. The learned counsel for the additional 3rd and 4th respondents also shared the argument of the additional 2nd respondent and submitted that overall scrutiny of the prosecution materials would make the allegations against the petitioner warranting investigation. The learned counsel given much emphasis to Annexure – A11 letter, admittedly sent by the petitioner to the Chief Minister of Kerala where she admitted that she had done some illegal activities as directed by the Administrative Committee and the President. She was ready to face consequences for the same. According to the learned counsel for the additional respondents 3 and 4, they lost Rs.60 lakh in this matter. Thus, it is pointed out that the role of the petitioner regarding the allegation is an admitted fact, rather than mere allegations, and in such a case, without having the custodial interrogation, release of the petitioner on anticipatory bail would impede the investigation. Therefore, he zealously opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. Thus, it is pointed out that the role of the petitioner regarding the allegation is an admitted fact, rather than mere allegations, and in such a case, without having the custodial interrogation, release of the petitioner on anticipatory bail would impede the investigation. Therefore, he zealously opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. Addressing the arguments advanced by the additional 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents, the learned Public Prosecutor conceded their grievance and strongly opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor produced a report of the Inspector of Police, Kollam West Police Station, and submitted that apart from this crime, another crime (Crime No. 1176/2025) was also registered against the petitioner as on 10.07.2025. That apart, twenty complaints with similar allegations were already filed before the police station, necessitating registration of crimes in this regard. Since the allegations are serious, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner without providing an opportunity to the prosecution to effect custodial interrogation of the petitioner is fatal to the investigation and successful prosecution. 9. On scrutiny of the prosecution allegations, along with the records placed, the crux of the allegation is that the accused herein, who has been working as the Secretary of Kollam Co-operative Building Society Q157, obtained unlawful enrichment by obtaining deposits from third parties on the premise of depositing the same in the Society by issuing forged receipts and certificates and misappropriated the same by herself and during investigation, as of now Rs.43,35,000/- was found to be misappropriated by her. When the depositors demanded the money, she had issued 12 cheques by forging the signature of the President therein, who is the de facto complainant in this case along with her signature, since the cheques of the Society would be honoured only when signed by the President and Secretary. It is relevant to note, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the additional respondents 3 and 4, as per Annexure – A11 letter dated 03.07.2025 forwarded by the accused to the Chief Minister, she partially admitted the nancial crisis and liability of the Society on account of failure to return the deposits by admitting her role in the illegalities with the President. In the report of the Investigating Officer, it is stated that now investigation for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC as well as Section 13(1) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act has been going on and it was requested by the Inspector of Police to the VACB to take over investigation in view of incorporation of the PC Act offences. In the report, it is pointed out that the case is under preliminary stage of investigation. Hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary to ascertain the truth of the allegation in depth involving a huge sum, and in such a case, grant of anticipatory bail would impede the investigation and would lead to the possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses by threat and coercion. 10. It is discernible from the prosecution records that one Abhijith deposited Rs.25 lakh to the Society with an undertaking to deposit a total sum of Rs.50 lakh on assurance to provide him an employment therein. But he has filed a criminal case on dishonour of cheque for Rs.25 lakh issued by the Society in part payment of the amount at his instance. This is evident from Annexure – A11 letter given by Abijith to the President of the Society. 11. It is interesting to note that in this matter, the allegation against the petitioner is very serious and the same is to the effect that she misappropriated Rs.43,35,000/-. In such a case, as pointed out by the Investigating Officer and as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the additional respondent Nos.2, 3, and 4, a thorough investigation by effectively questioning the petitioner in custody is absolutely necessary to investigate as the amount misappropriated and where the same is now. In such a case involving misappropriation of a huge sum, grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner would be fatal to the investigation and the interest of the victims who lost the amount, so also the same would impede successful prosecution. 12. In such a case involving misappropriation of a huge sum, grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner would be fatal to the investigation and the interest of the victims who lost the amount, so also the same would impede successful prosecution. 12. Even though, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has some health issues, referring to Annexures — A9 and A10, it appears that the same was issued on 07.05.2025 when she applied for leave from 08.05.2015 suggesting that she has some issues with disc and she would require three months leave. As per Annexure A10 dated 10.11.2022 (three years before), some mild diffuse disc bulge was the impression as per MRI examination. In fact, these are not reasons to see any serious ailment to the petitioner since she worked as the Society after 10.11.2022 till 07.05.2022 with the same discomfort. Thus bail plea on the said ground also would not yield. In the result, this petition is dismissed with direction to the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer forthwith, and on failure to do so, the Investigating Officer is free to arrest the petitioner as per law.