IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5252 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.799/2011 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED : --------------------------- K.Y.MOHAMMED, S/O.YUSUF, AGED 58, RESIDING AT KATTUSSERY HOUSE, P.O.AZHIKODE, AZHIKODE VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.5252 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.799 of 2011 of Kodungallur Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is alleged that as convener of the project for constructing water shutters and retaining walls, the petitioner was expected to grant loans to Kudumbasree Units. The further allegation is that the petitioner fabricated documents to make it appear that the loan was granted while in fact it was not granted. Two members of the Kudumbasree Units, namely, Sajitha Aji and Fathima filed petitions before the police alleging the commission of offence. 4. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on BA 5252/2011 2 8th July, 2011, the following order was passed : “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the loans were duly repaid in the account of Sajitha Ali and Sheela, W/o Prathap, and, therefore, there was no room for any complaint. The petitioner relied on Annexures A4 and A5 petitions submitted by Sheela, W/o.Prathap and Sajitha Ali before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kodungallur. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, to avoid any further doubt on the question of repayment, the petitioner deposited the entire amount of Rupees One lakh, which could be released for granting loans. In these circumstances, it is submitted that there is no ground for initiating any criminal action against the petitioner. The learned counsel also submitted that if the accounts are verified, it would be clear to the investigating agency that there is no basis for the complaint. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor will get specific instructions with regard to these submissions and statements. The petitioner can also afford assistance to the investigating officer to find out the truth as stated by the petitioner. Post on 19th July, 2011. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime BA 5252/2011 3 No.799 of 2011 of Kodungallur Police Station, till 22.7.2011.” 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is not correct that Fathima withdrew the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sajitha Aji and another member Sheela, who represent the Kudumbasree Unit in which Fathima is a member, had withdrawn the complaint. It is also submitted that the full amount was deposited by the petitioner. 6. The question whether the amount was deposited later is not relevant for consideration. The question is whether the offence was committed. In the case of an offence of this nature, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail. If anticipatory bail is granted, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl