Manoj George vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P.J

Apprehending arrest in Crime No.242 of 2023 of Mannarkkad police station, Palakkad District, registered for offences punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has filed this petition.

The prosecution allegation is that the complainant is the manager of LIC of India, Mannarkkad branch. The accused was the clerk in that office and during the period from 2016 to 20-06-2021, he misappropriated the LIC premiums remitted by the policyholders and thereby siphoned a total amount of Rs.15,59,115/-, and committed the above offence.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the misappropriation alleged is from the year 2016 onwards and there is a yearly audit in place in the organization and it is impossible that the alleged misappropriation could not have been detected earlier. It is also argued that he is the sole accused and he alone cannot do a misappropriation as alleged. He has no access to the network as the same is password protected. It is also his argument that receipts will be issued when the premium is collected from a customer and even in the disciplinary proceedings, the arguments of the management on the reliability of the audit were not accepted. At any rate, Section 420 is not attracted as he has acted only on the instructions of the superior officer.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the application submits that there was a misappropriation of about Rs.15,00,000/- over a period of five years. He was the record clerk and the allegation is that the LIC premium under the salary saving scheme was misappropriated by the petitioner and he argued that in such a situation custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.

Learned counsel for the defacto complainant argues that the petitioner was in charge of a small branch at Mananrkkad and irregularities were noticed sometime after it had been committed, which led to the enquiry in which it was found that he had misappropriated the premium remitted by the customers to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. After the disciplinary proceedings, he was found guilty and was dismissed from service. Only an amount of Rs.5.63 lakhs was recovered and the balance needs to be recovered. The delay in lodging the FIR is satisfactorily explained, public money is involved and a proper investigation including custodial interrogation is required in the facts of the case.

Having considered the rival submissions, a few facts deserve notice. The length of the period during which the alleged misappropriation took place is nearly six years, part of the amount allegedly misappropriated has already been removed, even in the disciplinary proceedings the reliability of the audit has not been accepted in full, the likelihood of more persons other than the petitioner being involved in the alleged misappropriation, most of the evidence to be adduced are in documentary form, no antecedents reported against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, I allow the application on the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within a week from today, and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioner. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating officer shall produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself.

(ii) On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioner on bail, on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) by the petitioner and by two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

(iii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall make himself available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation as and when the Investigating Officer directs him to do so.

(iv) The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the Investigation in any manner. He shall not leave the Country without the prior permission of the Court Concerned.

(v) The petitioner shall not be involved in a similar offence while on bail.

(vi) If any of the above conditions are violated, the court concerned will be empowered to take steps for cancellation of bail as per law.

It is made clear that it is within the power of police to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner, even when the petitioners are on bail as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State ( NCT of Delhi) and another [2021 (1) KHC 663].