Sangeetha Bhaskar vs State Of Kerala on 4 March, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sangeetha Bhaskar vs State Of Kerala on 4 March, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  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

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 *