IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4907 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.377/2008 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED ----------------- G.SREEDHAR, AGED 28, S/O.GOVINDAN, 1/5 BHAJANAIKOIL STREET GANAPATHIPURAM EAST TAMBARAM, CHENNAI. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMESH RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------- S.I. OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN FOR ADDL.R2 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4907 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 463, 464, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner was working as Senior Officer Production, Planning and Inventory Control in the defacto complainant company. The company is engaged in export of spices. Petitioner created forged documents and falsified the account relating to transporting charges and misappropriated an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the company. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner wanted to resign from the company, since he was not happy with the management. But, the company did not allow petitioner to resign the job. He was threatened continuously and therefore, petitioner and his wife, who is a dental doctor, attempted to commit suicide and they were hospitalised and it is evidenced by Annexure AIII and AIV discharge summary issued BA No.4907/2008 2 from the hospital. Petitioner has not forged any documents and it is not possible also, because the documents will be verified by two officials who are placed above the petitioner, it is submitted. 4. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant was also heard. He submitted that the audit was conducted in the company and in the first audit itself, which was conducted in April 2008, it was noticed that Rs.30,000/- was misappropriated and it was later found that fake bills relating to transportation were forged. The auditing is going on and it is understood that more amounts are misappropriated by the petitioner in the same manner. The petitioner left the company in the second half of June 2008, knowing that action would be taken against him. Petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation, and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. Learned public prosecutor opposed this application and submitted that the petitioner has given two different addresses as his permanent place of residence. Before the company, he gave one address and in the anticipatory bail, he has given yet another address. Petitioner is not a native of this State. Therefore, it is suspected that the petitioner has not given BA No.4907/2008 3 the correct address and this fact is to be enquired into and confirmed failing which he may abscond and it may be difficult to procure his presence for trial. Petitioner is required for custodial interrogation also, especially since investigation reveals that two bills are produced for the same transaction and this may include fake bill also and the relevant facts will be within the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner. 6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the nature of the allegations made, there will be many facts which are in the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner and those can be brought out, only by an interrogation of the accused. It is also likely that petitioner may abscond also. Therefore, it may not be proper for this Court to grant anticipatory bail, especially on consideration of the serious nature of the accusation made against the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl