High Court Kerala High Court

Sasi Kumar vs The State Of Kerala on 5 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
Sasi Kumar vs The State Of Kerala on 5 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3391 of 2009()


1. SASI KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SMT.P.K.PRIYA

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :05/08/2009

 O R D E R
                         K.T.SANKARAN, J.
            ------------------------------------------------------
                      B.A. NO. 3391 OF 2009
            ------------------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 5th August, 2009


                               O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in

Crime No.233 of 2009 of Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod

District.

2. The offences alleged against the accused persons are

under Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner was working as Shop Manager of Labham

Market, Cheruvathur, run by the Kerala State Civil Supplies

Corporation, at the relevant time. The allegation is that he along with

the other accused persons manipulated the accounts and

misappropriated amounts.

4. The petitioner was placed under suspension. He

challenged the order of suspension in W.P.(C) No.20486 of 2009.

B.A. NO. 3391 OF 2009

:: 2 ::

The petitioner contended that the stock details available in the

computer do not reveal the true state of affairs, that there were

errors in the computer recordings and that the time expired goods

and goods, the shelf life of which would expire shortly, were not

taken into account while computing the actual stock available. As

per the interim order dated 23.7.2009, this Court directed to

reinstate the petitioner in service. The order dated 23.7.2009 reads

as follows:

“Admit. Sri.Millu Dandapani, learned standing

counsel takes notice for the respondents.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing

for the respondents on the question of grant of interim

relief. On going through Ext.P3 and the statement

therein that the stock referred to therein is excluding

time expired goods, goods, the shelf life of which is to

expire shortly and goods which are not fast moving, I

am prima facie satisfied that there is no factual

foundation for the reason given in Ext.P6 to place the

petitioner under suspension. There will accordingly be

an interim order directing the respondents to forthwith

reinstate the petitioner in service. It will however be

open to the respondents to post the petitioner in another

station in the same district.”

B.A. NO. 3391 OF 2009

:: 3 ::

5. In the light of the interim order passed by this Court in the

Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, I am of the view that it is only just

and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. There will be a

direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in

charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing

bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to

the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following

conditions:

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating
officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on every
alternate Sundays, till the final report is filed or until
further orders;

b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating
officer for interrogation as and when required;

c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution
witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in
any prejudicial activity while on bail;

e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned
above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/