Santhosh P.V. vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This is an application filed u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

The petitioner is the accused No.1 in Crime No.4/2022 of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Southern Range, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged are punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner while serving as Sub Registrar of Sub Registrar's Office, Nemom demanded `3,000/- as bribe on 9/12/2022 for registering a document in favour of the complainant and accepted the amount on 13/12/2022 through the accused No.2, who is the office attendant of Sub Registrar's Office and thereby committed the offences alleged.

Heard Sri.Babu S.Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Rekha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Sri.A.Rajesh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and hence he is entitled to get bail. The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He contended that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the petitioner and if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would affect the course of investigation.

The law with regard to the grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power u/s 438 of Cr.P.C could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. Perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation made against the petitioner is well founded. The allegations made against him are very serious in nature and it prima facie show a premeditated criminal act on his part.

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there is no recovery of amount from the possession of the petitioner. The amount was recovered from the accused No.2. The counsel further submitted that Annexures A and B produced along with the bail application would show that the petitioner was not present at the Sub Registrar's Office on the date of the incident as he was attending a conference of the District Registrar. It is true that the documents would reveal that he was not present in the office. But the definite case of the complainant is that when he met the petitioner on 9/12/2022 at the Sub Registrar's Office, he demanded `3,000/- and specifically directed him to hand over it to the accused No.2 on the date of registration of the sale deed. The demand of money by the petitioner and the acceptance of bribe by the accused No.2 at the instance of the petitioner is sufficient to attract the offence. The petitioner has not shown any reason why he was falsely implicated by the complainant. The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail. Hence, considering the gravity of the offence and stage of investigation, I feel that it is not a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. could be invoked. The application is only to be dismissed.

In the result, the bail application is dismissed.