Manager’s wife gets anticipatory bail in alleged ₹2.97-crore credit-society fund diversion case

The petitioner, accused No. 2, sought anticipatory bail in a case arising from allegations that her husband, accused No. 1 and the manager of Gommatesha Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., transferred society funds—including funds allegedly transferred to her account—to various accounts. The complaint alleged a total transfer of ₹2,97,78,989. The petitioner disputed the evidence concerning the amount allegedly transferred to her and noted that the audit report was not included with the charge-sheet. The investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The prosecution opposed bail, alleging misappropriation and a risk of witness tampering.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations that funds of the society had been transferred to her account.

2. Whether the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, together with the circumstances of the case, justified granting anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

The petition was considered under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail. The alleged offences were under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; the petition’s prayer also referred to Sections 336(2) and 3(5).

The Court assessed the nature and gravity of the allegations, whether the petitioner’s alleged receipt of the funds was clearly corroborated, the stage of the investigation, and her readiness to comply with conditions. No precedent was cited.

The Court found that the principal allegation concerned accused No. 1’s transfers of society funds, while the specific allegation against the petitioner was that funds had been transferred to her account; that allegation was not clearly corroborated on the material before the Court.

The Court also noted the delay between the audit reports for 2024–2025 and the complaint lodged in 2026, and held that whether the petitioner had received the transferred funds remained a matter for trial.

Given that the investigation was complete, the alleged offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and the petitioner was willing to comply with conditions, the Court considered anticipatory bail appropriate.

The petitioner must execute a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with one surety for the like sum, surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days of receiving the certified order, attend court hearings, refrain from tampering with prosecution witnesses, and not commit further offences.