Bindu S. vs State Of Kerala And Anr

This is an application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.120/2019 of Thrissur Town West Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable

under Sections 409, 420 and 201 of the I.P.C.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that while working as Liquidator of the Thrissur District Woman’s Industrial Cooperative Society, the applicant

allegedly misappropriated an amount of Rs.19,82,313/- from out of Rs.22,80,000/- deposited in the account maintained by the accused in the State

Bank of India, Ayyanthole Branch, in connection with the sale of land to Thrissur Corporation during the period from 28.11.2015 to 20.08.2018. The

applicant had withdrawn the amount from that account since it was maintained in her name and then it was misappropriated. The applicant

approached this Court for anticipatory bail, which was disallowed and she was directed to surrender before the investigating officer. Accordingly, she

surrendered on 08.10.2020 and was released and thereafter she was arrested on 03.12.2020 and remanded to judicial custody. The applications filed

by the applicant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur, were both dismissed, and therefore, she has sought for the indulgence of this

Court.

It is submitted that the applicant was given to the custody of the police for the purpose of investigation. All the records pertaining to the alleged

misappropriation have been seized and taken into custody, and therefore, no purpose would be served by incarcerating her further. It is also pointed

out by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the application for bail was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate so that, it stands out as

a lesson of deterrence to others, who similar tendencies.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned Public Prosecutor has not got the entire instructions. But on going through the records that are available and on hearing the learned

Counsel for the applicant, I find that custodial interrogation of the applicant is over. The records have been seized, and therefore, the possibility of the

applicant tampering with evidence does not arise. The applicant need not be detained solely to give her a taste of imprisonment (see Sanjay Chandra

v. C.B.I., (2012) 1 SCC 40). An accused is presumed to be innocent until found guilty. Prima facie materials prove her complicity and that is why she

was arrested. But continued detention may not be required. Under the circumstances, she is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the Bail Application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on the execution of bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two

lakhs only), with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court, on the following other conditions:

i) She shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9.00 AM and 12.00 noon for a period of two months or till the final report

is filed, whichever is earlier;

ii) She shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses; and

iii) She shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail.

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional Court.