Sabu P.V 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 accused in the case registered as V.C.No.4/2015/SIU-II by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Special Investigation Unit-II, Thiruvananthapuram under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under Sections 409, 420 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is that, while the petitioner was working as Manager of the Kerala State Federation of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Co-operative Limited at Thiruvananthapuram, Thrissur and Kothamangalam and at the petrol pump conducted by the Federation at Thiruvananthapuram, during the period from 2000 to 2010, abused his official position as public servant and misappropriated an amount of Rs.8,46,241.79/-by falsifying the accounts and forging the documents.

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

The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition as W.P.(C) No. 6648/2021 before this Court, being aggrieved by the delay in completing the investigation of the case. It is to be noted that the case was registered against him in the year 2015. As per Annexure-C judgment, this Court disposed of the above writ petition recording the submission made by the investigating officer that the investigation in the case was expected to be completed by the end of August, 2021. However, the fact remains that the investigation was not completed. The statement filed by the investigating officer reveals that it was due to the COVID-19 pandemic situation that the investigation could not be completed by the end of August, 2021.

Meanwhile, the investigating officer has served Annexure-D notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C on the petitioner directing him to appear before him at 10:30 hours on 22.11.2021. Therefore, apprehending arrest, the petitioner has filed this application for anticipatory bail.

In the statement filed by the investigating officer it is mentioned that Annexure-D notice was served on the petitioner for detailed interrogation of him with a view to ascertain more facts of the case. It is also mentioned that for the smooth conduct and completion of the investigation of the case, the appearance of the petitioner before the investigating officer for interrogation is absolutely necessary.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to appear before the investigating officer and to co-operate with the investigation.

The investigating officer has got no plea that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for completing the investigation in an effective manner. There is also no apprehension expressed by the investigating officer that, on getting bail, the petitioner would abscond and flee from justice. The petitioner is now not in service. Therefore, it is not likely that, on getting bail, he would tamper with evidence. Moreover, the fact remains that, after the registration of the case in the year 2015, till this time, the petitioner has not been arrested by the investigating officer.

In the above circumstances, I find 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 sureties each for the like amount in the event of his arrest by the investigating officer of the VACB in the case V.C.No.4/2015/SIU-II of the VACB, Thiruvananthapuram.

ii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when directed in writing to do so.

iii) 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.

iv) If the petitioner violates any of the conditions of bail, the jurisdictional court is at liberty to cancel the bail without any further orders of this Court but only in accordance with law.