High CourtsSingle Bench

Shaji K.S vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 17 September 2021 · Citation: (2021) 09 KL CK 0146

HON’BLE JUDGES
R. Narayana Pisharadi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(1)(a) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 120B, 167, 403, 409, 420, 471
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 2856 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 681 words

R. Narayana Pisharadi, J

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2.

The petitioner is the third accused in the case registered as V.C 02/2020/KTM under Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under Sections 167, 403, 409, 420, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The prosecution case is as follows: The District Supply Officer, Kottayam issued order for supply of 260 sacks of rice from Rani Rice Mill, Arpookara to the NFSA Depot at the place Oravakkal in Kottayam District, under the supervision of the Rationing Inspector concerned. The rice was intended for distributing to the public at subsidy rate. The 260 sacks of rice were loaded in the lorry bearing registration number KL-05-G-1920 at the Rani Rice Mill. However, the rice was not delivered to the NFSA depot. The vehicle was redirected to St.Mary's Rice Mill, Nellad and the rice was sold to that mill. The act of the accused caused a loss of Rs.4,68,248/- to the public exchequer.

4.

The allegation against the petitioner herein, the third accused in the case, is that he was the driver of the lorry in which the rice was loaded and he had role in diverting the rice without delivering it at the NFSA depot.

5.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

6.

The FIR in the case was registered on 03.02.2020. The case diary reveals that the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the investigating officer on 06.01.2021 and 18.01.2021.

7.

The application for anticipatory bail was filed by the petitioner on 29.03.2021. The prosecution has no case that the petitioner has been absconding during the period of investigation of the case. If custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary for the progress of the investigation of the case, he would have been arrested by the VACB. The very fact that he was not arrested inspite of his availability would indicate that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case.

8.

In the statement filed by the investigating officer, it is mentioned that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not essential if the petitioner would co-operate with the investigation of the case.

9.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the petitioner is entitled to get the privilege of pre-arrest bail.

10.

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 police in Crime No. V.C 02/2020/KTM of the VACB, Kottayam Unit.

(ii) The investigating officer is entitled to interrogate the petitioner before releasing him on bail. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when he is required to do so.

(iv) The petitioner shall furnish the investigating officer his mobile phone number and address for the purpose of contacting him. If any subsequent change is made with regard to such number or address, it shall be intimated by him to the investigating officer forthwith.

(v) The petitioner shall not in any manner intimidate or influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence in the case.

(vi) The petitioner shall not make any threat, promise or inducement to any person who is acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts before the court or any other authority.

(vii) If the petitioner violates any of the conditions of bail, the jurisdictional court is entitled to cancel his bail without any further orders of this Court but in accordance with law.

11.

The case diary produced shall be returned forthwith to the Public Prosecutor concerned.

Crl.M.A.No.1/2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The prayer for correcting the name is allowed. The Registry shall make necessary correction in the cause title of the bail application.