IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 3809 of 2007()
1. K.MADHAVAN, AGED 45 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :26/06/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A.NO.3809 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces
allegations in a crime registered under Secs.409 and 420 of the
IPC. The crime has been registered on basis of a complaint
filed before the learned Magistrate and referred to the police
under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The crux of the allegations is
that the petitioner, who had collected the amounts as an agent
of a Chitty Company, had fraudulently bid the chitty without
the knowledge, information or consent of the complainant and
had appropriated such amounts without informing the de facto
complainant for the purpose of the petitioner. Investigation is
in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the allegations are totally unjustified. All the amounts
collected have been remitted to the Canara Bank as seen from
B.A.NO.3809 OF 2007 -: 2 :-
the statement of accounts maintained in the Bank. The
petitioner works as an agent of the Canara Bank.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the fact that the
amounts have been remitted with the Canara Bank is no answer
to the allegations raised against the petitioner. The allegation is
that the chitty has been bid without the knowledge of the de
facto complainant and the amount has been misappropriated. I
find merit in the opposition of the learned Public Prosecutor. I
do not find any circumstances that would justify the invocation of
the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the
Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. The Case Diary has been
placed before me for my perusal.
4. In the result, this Bail Application is dismissed; but with
the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the
Investigators or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and
applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the
B.A.NO.3809 OF 2007 -: 3 :-
Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must
proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge