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.

The petitioner is the first 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

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

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended by Act 16 of 2018) and also under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the I.P.C.

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 for monetary relief received 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 in the SCD

office who was in charge of receiving the applications and processing the same. Accused 2 to 11 are close relatives or friends of the petitioner. The

fourth accused was a Clerk in the SCD office and the fifth and the eleventh accused were Scheduled Caste Promoters. Pursuant to a conspiracy

hatched by the accused persons, the petitioner incorporated the bank account numbers of accused 2 to 11 in forged applications and using such

applications, he got transferred a total amount of Rs.79,52,693/-to their bank accounts. Thereafter, with the connivance of accused 2 to 11, the

petitioner withdrew that amount and misappropriated it. Thus, the accused siphoned out money which was intended to be paid to the poor and needy

persons and cheated those persons and also the Government.

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

The petitioner had filed an application seeking anticipatory bail in the case. As per Annexure-I order, this Court rejected the prayer for granting

anticipatory bail but directed the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer. Accordingly, the petitioner surrendered before the investigating

officer and he was arrested and produced before the jurisdictional court on 09.07.2021 and he was remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, the

petitioner was remanded to police custody also.

True, this Court had granted anticipatory bail to some of the accused to whom the petitioner had transferred the money. But, on the ground of

parity, the petitioner is not entitled to get bail. The case against the petitioner altogether stands on a different footing.

Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, that is, his

position in relation to the incident and to the victims, is of utmost importance (See Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai : AIR 2021 SC

2011 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 335).

The petitioner was the mastermind behind the entire operation conducted for embezzlement of money. He had allegedly played a pivotal role in

facilitating the swindling of public funds on the basis of forged applications. According to the prosecution, he has been successful in siphoning out

Rs.79,52,693/- which was intended to be used for the welfare of persons who belong to scheduled castes.

The investigation of the case is at the nascent stage. A deeper probe is required with regard to the embezzlement of money by the petitioner. The

evidence collected after obtaining custody of the petitioner has to be evaluated by the investigating officer to ascertain the real ramifications of the

various transactions conducted.

The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The general principles regarding granting or refusing bail are enumerated in

several judgments of the Apex Court. Generally, the following matters are to be considered in granting or refusing bail to a person accused of a non-

bailable offence (1) The nature of the offence (2) The severity of the punishment which conviction will entail (3) The character, behaviour, means and

standing of the accused (4) The circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (5) The status and position of the accused in relation to the victim or

the complainant (6) Reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused during the trial (7) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being

tampered with (8) The larger interests of the public or the State or the society (9) Likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice (10) Absence or

presence of materials in support of the accusation (11) Likelihood of the offence being repeated (12) Frivolity in prosecution.

Economic offences, having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds, need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave

offences (See Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI : (2013) 7 SCC 439 : AIR 2013 SC 1933). An economic offence is committed with cool calculation

and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community (See State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji

Porwal : (1987) 2 SCC 364 : AIR 1987 SC 1321).

Economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the society as a whole. The entire community would be aggrieved if the

economic offenders, who ruin the economy of the State, are not brought to book in a proper manner.

‘Bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ is the well established principle but competing forces present in the facts and circumstances of

each case have to be measured before enlarging a person on bail. Socio-economic offences have deep impact affecting the moral fiber of the society

and it is a matter needs to be considered seriously (See State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai : AIR 2017 SC 2487).

While considering the prayer for granting bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, prejudice to the free, fair and full

investigation and prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused in jail.

The petitioner is the kingpin of an economic offence of huge magnitude. Unlike the other accused in the case, it cannot be found that the case

against him could be proved mainly by documentary evidence only. Ocular evidence of persons who were working in the same office would also be

material. Influencing or intimidating material witnesses by the petitioner cannot be ruled out at this stage of the investigation.

The application filed by the investigating officer before the jurisdictional court seeking custody of the petitioner shows that, on registration of the

case, the petitioner had absconded and he had gone to Delhi.

This is a case of fraud of large magnitude where public money has been swindled by the petitioner in conspiracy with other accused. The offences

alleged against the petitioner are very serious involving deep-rooted planning in which huge financial loss is caused to the State exchequer.

In the aforesaid circumstances, releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage would certainly hamper the investigation. The prayer for granting bail to

the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

Consequently, the application is dismissed.