IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 865 of 2008()
1. SHAMNAD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :14/02/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.865 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of February 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the
Village Extension Officer. Crime has been registered for
offences punishable under Sections 408 and 420 I.P.C. The de
facto complainant is the B.D.O, a superior official. The crux of
the allegations is that the petitioner had fraudulently withdrawn
an amount of Rs.60,000/- which was not meant to be transferred
to his personal account. He allegedly misutilised the same for
his own personal purposes and did not use the same for the
purpose for which it was meant. Repayment was made only on
22/10/2007. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in
progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is absolutely innocent. There was no
contumacious or culpable intention. In the over enthusiasm on
the part of the petitioner, who has a distinguished record of
performance of official duty, he had only withdrawn the amount
and kept it in the hope that it can be disbursed to eligible
claimants; but in the meantime, the petitioner has been
transferred and the mission could not be accomplished. The
B.A.No.865/08 2
petitioner is a winner of awards and appreciations from his
superior officers. For the innocuous irregularity allegedly
committed by him, he may not be compelled to suffer the trauma
of arrest and incarceration. The petitioner is willing to co-
operate with the investigating officer. At any rate, there are
documents which evidence the transaction in question. It is not
necessary to insist on arrest and incarceration of the petitioner,
submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the
application. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am
persuaded to agree that the petitioner can be granted
anticipatory bail subject of course to appropriate and strict
conditions.
4. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following
directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C in favour of the
petitioner.
i) Petitioner shall surrender before the learned
Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m on 21/02/2008. He shall
be released on regular bail on condition that he executes a bond
for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned
Magistrate.
B.A.No.865/08 3
ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation before the investigating officer between 10 a.m
and 5 p.m on 22/02/2008 and 23/02/2008. During this period,
the investigating officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the
petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper
conduct of the investigation in this crime. Thereafter the
petitioner shall so appear on all Mondays and Fridays between
10 a.m and 12 noon for a period of one month and subsequently
as and when directed by the investigating officer in writing to
do so.
(iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned
Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall
thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to
arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law,
as if these directions were not issued at all.
(iv) If he were arrested prior to 21/02/2008, he shall be
released from custody on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees twenty five thousand only) without any sureties,
undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on
21/02/2008.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
B.A.No.865/08 4
jsr
B.A.No.865/08 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007