High Court Kerala High Court

Arunachalam vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Arunachalam vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5611 of 2008()


1. ARUNACHALAM, AGED 39 YEARS,H
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :15/09/2008

 O R D E R
                              K.HEMA, J.

                  -----------------------------------------
                         B.A.No.5611 of 2008
                  -----------------------------------------

               Dated this the 15th September, 2008

                               O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 of Indian Penal

Code. According to prosecution, the General Manager of Imperial

Spirits Limited entrusted Rs.4.8 lakhs with the petitioner, who is

the Assistant Manager of the Company for depositing in the

Treasury towards brand registration fee. The petitioner did not

deposit the amount, but produced a forged chalan containing

Treasury seal, which is also forged and offence was detected at a

later stage.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is a

dispute between the petitioner and the Manager. The deposits are

usually done by the Accountant, but, in view of the dispute, the

petitioner has been falsely implicated as the accused. He is

absolutely innocent of the allegations made. It is also pointed out

that there is an inordinate delay of three months in lodging the

complaint and hence, on these grounds anticipatory bail can be

granted, it is submitted.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that this is a case where the Treasury seal has been

BA.5611/08 2

forged and a fake chalan has been produced by the petitioner to

make it appear that the amount was actually deposited in the

Treasury. The amount involved is Rs.4.8 lakhs which was entrusted

by the General Manager personally to the petitioner. The petitioner

is required for investigation.

5. On hearing both sides, I do not think it fit to grant

anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature, especially since there

will be many materials within the exclusive knowledge of the

petitioner regarding the commission of forgery and his

interrogation will be required for an effective investigation.

Petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.