Rahul R.U vs State Of Kerala

R.Narayana Pisharadi, J

This is an application for bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’).

The petitioner is the first accused in the case registered as Crime No.224/2021 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

investigating officer filed report in the court concerned for continuing the investigation also into the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(a) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended by Act 16 of 2018).

The prosecution case is as follows : The petitioner, who is the first accused, was the Senior Clerk in the Office of the Scheduled Caste

Development (SCD), Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. There are various schemes formulated by the Government for improving the social conditions

of persons who belong to scheduled castes. The applications received for monetary relief from such persons would be processed in the SCD office

and recommendation for sanctioning money would be made to the Scheduled Caste Development Officer in eligible cases. The money sanctioned

would be passed for payment by the treasury and it would be transferred to the bank accounts of the beneficiaries through Bill Information

Management System. The bank account numbers of the beneficiaries are being entered in the SCD office. The petitioner was the person who was in

charge of processing the applications received in the SCD office in connection with such schemes. The second accused in the case was a Scheduled

Caste Promoter in the same office. Pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by him with the second accused, the petitioner incorporated the bank account

number of the second accused in two forged applications and using such applications, he got transferred Rs.2,75,000/- to the bank account of the

second accused. Thus, the accused siphoned out money which was intended to be paid to the poor and needy persons and misappropriated it and

cheated the Government.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner had surrendered before the investigating officer in another case pursuant to the order passed by this Court in B.A.No.3864/2021.

Then he was arrested and produced before the jurisdictional court in connection with the present case also. He has been in judicial custody in the

present case from 09.07.2021 onwards.

Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, though the petitioner was remanded to police custody in the other case in which he surrendered

before the investigating officer, no application for such custody was made by the investigating officer in the present case in the jurisdictional court.

Now, the investigating officer cannot make any application for such custody of the petitioner in the present case as the time for seeking such custody

is over. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the above fact would indicate that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not

necessary in the present case and there is no necessity at all to detain him in judicial custody for conducting further investigation in the case.

In answer to a query made by this Court with regard to recovery of the money allegedly misappropriated by the petitioner, learned Public

Prosecutor has submitted that the second accused in the case has remitted an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- which was embezzled by the petitioner.

It is true that repayment of the amount misappropriated will not wipe off the criminal liability. It is also true that the offences alleged against the

petitioner are serious in nature. However, as far as the present case is concerned, I am of the view that further detention of the petitioner in custody is

not at all required for completing the investigation of the case in an effective manner.

In the instant case, misappropriation of money was committed by the petitioner through two transactions. The case against the petitioner mainly

depends upon documentary evidence relating to the above two transactions. Collection or seizure of such documents does not require the further

detention of the petitioner in judicial custody.

In the above circumstances, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioner in the present case on stringent conditions.

Consequently, the application for bail is allowed. The petitioner is granted bail in this case on the following conditions.

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of

the jurisdictional court concerned.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required and he 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 his passport in the jurisdictional court. If he has got no passport or if he has surrendered it in connection with any other case, he

shall file an affidavit to that effect in that court.

(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 he 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 in accordance with law.

It is made clear that granting of bail to the petitioner in the present case shall not be treated as a ground for granting him bail in any other case.