IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7355 of 2008() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.439/2008 OF VENJARAMMODU POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------------------- K.P.PRATHEESH, 30 YEARS, S/O.K.J. PREMKUMAR, KALLILVILA VEEDU KOTTAKKULAM, PERINADU PO. KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT : ----------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM THEOUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENJARAMMOODU POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.7355 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 409 and 420 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioner, who is a village assistant collected huge amount of money on 21.06.2008 and 24.06.2008 and thereafter he did not deposit the same in the office and he unauthorisedly absented himself from the office and hence a complaint was filed against him. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has no duty to collect the amount, as alleged. It is the duty of the village officer to collect amount towards building tax and land tax. Petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. The responsibility is on the village officer to receive the amount and he is the custodian of the amount. Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. It is also submitted that the village officer did not file any complaint before the police or take any disciplinary action against petitioner and hence, petitioner is innocent. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner was entrusted with the work of B.A.No.7355 of 2008 2 collecting building tax as well as land tax from various customers. But he collected the amount and did not pay the same and he absented himself thereafter from the office. It is also submitted that the petitioner has the same precedent earlier also and hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. On hearing both sides, I find that a defence is put up is that petitioner is not the person who has to collect the amount. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that as per the receipts, both the village officer as well as the village assistant can sign as revealed from the printed form relating to collection of tax. Considering the nature of allegations made and nature of investigation required, I do not think that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned or the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac