Sumi P.S vs State Of Kerala

R.Narayana Pisharadi, J

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

2. The petitioners are accused 8 and 9 in the case registered as Crime No.240/2021 of the Museum Police Station.

3. 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 IPC and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended by Amendment Act

of 2018) was incorporated.

4. The first accused was the Senior Clerk in the Scheduled Caste Development Office. Accused 2 to 10 in the case are the friends and relatives of

the first accused. It is alleged that the first accused credited the money sanctioned by the Government, which was to be paid to various beneficiaries,

to the bank accounts of accused 2 to 10 and thereafter, he got the amount withdrawn by them and paid to him. 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 of the

Government.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary and the statement filed by the investigating

officer.

6. As per the order dated 04.05.2021, a learned Judge of this Court had granted interim bail to the petitioners in this application. However, the

statement filed by the investigating officer does not show that the petitioners were subsequently arrested and released on bail pursuant to that order.

7. It is mentioned in the statement filed by the investigating officer that the first petitioner is the wife of the seventh accused and the second

petitioner is the wife of the first accused in the case.

8. The case against the first accused and the case against the petitioners, who are accused 8 and 9, stand on different footings. The allegations in

the F.I.R as well as the statements of witnesses reveal that the first accused is the mastermind behind the entire operation conducted for

embezzlement of money. As far as the petitioners are concerned, even if the entire allegations against them are accepted as true, it can only be

presumed that they had acted as facilitators to the crime committed by the first accused, being conspirators or abettors.

9. Of course, the petitioners cannot pretend that they were not aware of the money which was credited to their bank accounts. The second

petitioner, being the wife of the first accused, would have been quite aware of the details of the embezzlement of money. There is allegation against

the petitioners that they withdrew the money from the bank and gave it to the first accused. Prima facie, there was conspiracy between the accused

to commit the crimes.

10. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the practice in the office concerned was to credit the amount to the bank accounts of the real

beneficiaries from the treasury account, on sanction being granted for payment of money. If that be so, payment of money would have been got

sanctioned by the first accused on the basis of forged applications made in the names of accused 2 to 10 or by showing the bank account numbers of

accused 2 to 10 in the genuine applications made by the real beneficiaries. No doubt, it requires deeper probe. The statement filed by the investigating

officer shows that various amounts were credited to the bank accounts of the petitioners, on different dates, from the treasury account.

11. In order to have an effective investigation of the case, interrogation of the petitioners would be necessary but custodial interrogation, certainly

not. The details regarding the money credited to the bank accounts of the petitioners and withdrawn from such accounts could be verified and brought

out in evidence by the relevant records kept in the banks concerned. Applications made for sanctioning the amount also could be obtained from the

office concerned and verified.

12. The prosecution has no apprehension that the petitioners may intimidate the witnesses in the case and make attempt to sabotage the

investigation. It is to be noted that most of the witnesses in this case would be Government servants. It is mentioned in the statement filed by the

investigating officer that, statements of the witnesses in whose name the cheating was made, have been recorded.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners can be granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail.

14. Consequently, the petition is allowed and it is ordered as follows:

(i)Â The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the

like sum in the event of their arrest by the police in Crime No.240/2021 of the Museum Police Station.

(ii)Â The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required and they shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

(iii)Â The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala, without the previous permission of the jurisdictional court concerned, till final report is filed in the case.

(iv)Â The petitioners 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 they shall not make any attempt to tamper with any evidence in the case.

(v)Â If the petitioners violate any of the conditions of bail, the jurisdictional court concerned is at liberty to cancel the bail but only in accordance with law.