Visakh 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 fifth 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, the

fifth accused, 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 was to be paid to various beneficiaries who belonged to scheduled castes, to the bank account of the fifth accused and

thereafter, he got the amount withdrawn from that account and that he misappropriated it. 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,

even if the entire allegations against him are accepted as true, it can only be presumed that he 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.

The petitioner cannot pretend that he was not aware of the details of the amount which was credited to his bank account. The petitioner has

admitted in the application for bail that he had given access to the first accused to his bank account. 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The details regarding the money credited to the bank account of the petitioner and withdrawn from such account could be verified and brought out in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 bank 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 of 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.