Poornima B.P vs State Of Kerala

R.Narayana Pisharadi, J

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The petitioner is the fourth accused in the case registered as Crime No.240/2021 of the Museum Police Station.

The case was registered against the accused initially under Sections 408, 417 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the

offences punishable under Section 120B of the IPC and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended by Amendment Act

of 2018) was incorporated.

The first accused was the Senior Clerk in the Scheduled Caste Development Office. Accused 2 to 10 in the case are the friends and relatives of

the first accused. The petitioner, the fourth accused, was employed in the same department in which the first accused was working. It is alleged that

the first accused credited the money sanctioned by the Government, which was to be paid to various beneficiaries, to the bank accounts of accused 2

to 10 and thereafter, he got the amount withdrawn by them and paid to him. Therefore, it is alleged that the accused have cheated the Government as

well as the real beneficiaries who were entitled to get the money under various schemes of the Government.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary and the statement filed by the investigating

officer.

The case against the first accused and the case against the petitioner stand on different footings. The allegations in the F.I.R as well as the

statements of witnesses reveal that the first accused is the mastermind behind the entire operation conducted for embezzlement of money. As far as

the petitioner is concerned, even if the entire allegations against her are accepted as true, it can only be presumed that she had acted as a facilitator to

the crime committed by the first accused, being a conspirator or abettor.

In the statement filed by the investigating officer, it is mentioned that a total amount of Rs.6,30,000/- had been transferred to the bank account of

the petitioner from the treasury. The petitioner cannot pretend that she was not aware of the money which was credited to her bank account. Her

plea that she owed money to the first accused and for that reason, she had given the ATM card issued in her name to the first accused cannot be

believed. Prima facie, it appears that there was conspiracy between the petitioner and the first accused to commit embezzlement of money.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the practice in the office concerned was to credit the amount to the bank accounts of the real

beneficiaries from the treasury account, on sanction being granted for payment of money. If that be so, payment of money would have been got

sanctioned by the first accused on the basis of forged applications made in the names of accused 2 to 10 or by showing the bank account numbers of

accused 2 to 10 in the genuine applications made by the real beneficiaries. No doubt, it requires a deeper probe.

In order to have an effective investigation of the case, interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary but custodial interrogation, certainly not.

The details regarding the money credited to the bank accounts of the petitioner and withdrawn from such accounts could be verified and brought out in

evidence by the relevant records kept in the banks concerned. Applications made for sanctioning the amount also could be obtained from the office

concerned and verified.

The prosecution has no apprehension that the petitioner would abscond, if bail is granted to her. It is stated that the ATM card of the petitioner has

to be recovered. Bail cannot be denied to the petitioner on that ground. The transactions conducted by using the ATM card can be proved through the

relevant bank accounts.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail.

Consequently, the petition is allowed and it is ordered as follows:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum

in the event of her arrest by the police in Crime No.240/2021 of the Museum Police Station.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required and she must co-operate with the investigation of the case.

(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala, without the previous permission of the jurisdictional court concerned, till final report is filed in the case.

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender her passport in the jurisdictional court concerned within a period of three days of her release on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person having acquaintance with the facts of the case so as to

dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to the investigating officer and she will not make any attempt to tamper with any evidence in the case.

(vi) If the petitioner violates any of the conditions of bail, the jurisdictional court is at liberty to cancel the bail but only in accordance with law.