Latha P.V. vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 2007

Kerala High Court
Latha P.V. vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 5803 of 2007()


1. LATHA P.V., W/O.K.L.SIMON, KOTHOOR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :08/10/2007

 O R D E R
                             R. BASANT, J.
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      B.A.No. 5803 of 2007
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              Dated this the 8th day of October, 2007

                                 O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, a woman,

faces allegations, inter alia, under Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C.

Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent

arrest.

2. The petitioner is a Junior Superintendent working in the

Police Academy. The crux of the allegations against her is that she

got a police constable to apply for loan for her own purpose. She

offered herself as one of the sureties. The defacto complainant had

never offered himself as one of the sureties. But he was shown as

one surety. His signature was forged. His salary certificate was

made use of. The petitioner took the entire loan amount. The defacto

complainant later knew about the alleged forgery and

misappropriation of amounts. He accordingly filed the complaint.

Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent

arrest.

B.A.No. 5803 of 2007
2

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

absolutely innocent. It is prayed that directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

may be issued in favour of the petitioner.

3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that

there are no features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the

extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of

the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that amounts have

been/shall be paid. Sufficient time has been given. The amount has not

been paid and the liability of the defacto complainant has not been

discharged so far. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioner

must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the

Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek

regular bail in the ordinary course. Needless to say, if the petitioner

satisfies the learned Magistrate that the entire amount has been paid and

discharged, the learned Magistrate shall take note of that circumstance also

as one relevant inputs while considering the claim for regular bail of the

petitioner.

5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however

hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate

B.A.No. 5803 of 2007
3

and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the

Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to

pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.

(R. BASANT)
Judge

tm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *