Rahul.R 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 one of the 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 I.P.C and also under Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended by Act

16 of 2018), were incorporated.

The first accused was the Senior Clerk in the Scheduled Caste Development Office of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. The petitioner was

the Scheduled Caste Promoter in that office. It is alleged that the first accused credited money, which was sanctioned by the Government and which

had to be paid to various beneficiaries who belonged to scheduled castes, to the bank account of the petitioner and the other accused persons and

thereafter, he got the amount withdrawn from such bank accounts and that he misappropriated the money. 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 formulated by the

Government for the uplifting of persons who belong to scheduled castes.

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

The first accused was the mastermind behind the entire operation conducted for embezzlement of money. As far as the petitioner is concerned,

learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that, the allegation is that he facilitated the first accused to credit the money into his bank account and

subsequently to withdraw the money from that account. Even if this allegation is accepted as true, it can only be presumed that the petitioner had

acted as a facilitator to the crime committed by the first accused and that he was a party to the conspiracy hatched by the accused to misappropriate

money.

In view of the fact that the first accused had withdrawn money from the bank account of the petitioner, it is futile for the petitioner to pretend that

he was not aware of the misappropriation of the amount by the first accused. Prima facie, it appears that a conspiracy was hatched among the first

accused and the petitioner and the other accused to siphon out public funds.

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 account of the petitioner and withdrawn from such account could be verified and brought out in

evidence by collecting relevant records kept in the banks concerned.

I also take note of the fact that most of the other accused in the case, except the first accused, who had similar role in the transactions, have been

granted pre-arrest bail by this Court on necessary conditions.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get 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 Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount in the

event of his 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 he shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

iii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport in the jurisdictional court concerned within three days of the date of his release on bail. If he has got no passport, he

shall file an affidavit to that effect in the jurisdictional court within the aforesaid period.

iv) 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.

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 the 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.