IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1410 of 2008()
1. V.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 37 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.FAISAL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :11/03/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.1410 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is an employee
of the Alangadu Grama panchayat. He had allegedly received an
amount of Rs.6,848/- from one Divya Kumar Jain and had issued a
receipt for the said amount to his an agent. Though the copy of
the receipt handed over to the party showed that an amount of
Rs.6,848/- has been received, the original kept in the office only
showed that an amount of Rs.15/- had been received. Only that
amount was brought into the accounts of the panchayat. The
offence was detected. Action was initiated. Ultimately a
complaint was filed before the police. Crime has accordingly
been registered on 14.02.08. Investigation is in progress. The
petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent. Only an amount of Rs.15/- had been
received. The petitioner is not responsible for the alteration of
the copy retained by the party. In any view of the matter, the
petitioner does not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and
detention. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the available
indications clearly show the complicity of the petitioner. In any
B.A.No.1410 of 2008 2
view of the matter, the petitioner does not deserve the invocation
of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438
Cr.P.C.
4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I have
perused the case diary. Copies of the original receipt as well as
the receipt issued to the party are available in the case diary. The
case diary statement of the person who allegedly made the
payment and obtained the receipt has also been perused by me.
Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to
agree that any circumstances exist in this case which can justify
or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where
the petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer or the
learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail.
5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed,
but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders
before the Investigating Officer or 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 appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
B.A.No.1410 of 2008 3