IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7627 of 2008()
1. MANIKANDAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :10/02/2009
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------------------------------
Bail Appl. No. 7627 of 2008
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009.
ORDER
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 468, 471, 420
and 409 of IPC. According to prosecution, a complaint was given
by the Administrator, Guruvayoor Devaswom alleging that
petitioner while working as U.D.Clerk in the Devaswom Board,
cheques were issued by the Deputy Administrator to several
contractors. When those cheques were presented by the
petitioner in the Andhara Bank wherein petitioner’s wife was
working and those were found to be manipulated and amounts
were obtained by petitioner and thereby he committed the
various offences.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner
was only one of the U.D. Clerks working in the Devaswom at the
time of commission of alleged offence. Petitioner has not
committed any offence. The contractors have not come forward
by making any complaint, it is submitted. In the above
circumstances, petitioner’s involvement cannot be confirmed, in
[B.A.No.7627/08] 2
the absence of complaint from the contractors. Therefore,
petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the crime is registered as early as on 1.12.2008
and petitioner could not be arrested and questioned so far. As
per the allegations made in the first information statement, the
offence is very serious and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory
bail. Petitioner’s presence will be required for the purpose of
interrogation and investigation.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions
made by learned Public prosecutor. The allegations made against
petitioner in this case are serious in nature and petitioner’s
interrogation will be required for ascertaining the facts which are
within his exclusive knowledge. In the peculiar nature of the
offence committed, his interrogation will be required to find out in
what manner the offence was committed. In the above
circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. No
special circumstance is pointed out to invoke the provision under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. Hence, the following order is passed:
1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating
officer forthwith and co-operate with the
investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police
[B.A.No.7627/08] 3
is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in
accordance with law.
2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the
petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this
Court.
Petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Krs.