IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1237 of 2008()
1. SANGEETHA BHASKAR, CHIRATTAPURATH VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.DILIP MOHAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/03/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 1237 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, a woman,
faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences
punishable, inter alia, under Section 409 I.P.C. The petitioner
was the Secretary of a Milk Co-operative Society. While
discharging the duties as such Secretary of the Society, she is
alleged to have committed the offence of misappropriation,
breach of trust and falsification of documents of the society. The
crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint
filed by the Hon. Secretary of the society, who had taken charge
after the petitioner was kept under suspension. Specific instances
of culpable indiscretion are alleged against the petitioner as also
two other employees of the society. The complaint was
forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police.
Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent
arrest.
B.A.No. 1237 of 2008
2
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent. False and vexatious allegations are being raised
against the petitioner. She is not guilty of any misappropriation or
other culpable indiscretion. She is not in any way responsible for the
culpable indiscretion of the co-accused. In these circumstances it is
prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner.
3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits
that the complaint gives the graphic details of various acts of culpable
indiscretion on the part of the petitioner. He has placed before me the
case diary for my perusal. The Investigating Officer heavily relies on
the admissions made by the petitioner in a letter submitted to the
President, copy of which is available in the case diary. In such letter
she owns the responsibility for the indiscretion and undertakes that the
amounts shall be repaid.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs and the submissions
of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am unable to find any
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
B.A.No. 1237 of 2008
3
petitioner. This I agree with the learned Prosecutor, 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.
5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however
hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned
Magistrate 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
