IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 517 of 2008() ---------------------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- S.SUJITH KUMAR, S/O. G.SANKAR, SANKAR BHAVAN, PUZHAVATTU, CHANGANASSERY P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ 1. S.I. OF POLICE, KONDOTTY POLICE STATION. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 517 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.406 and 420 of the IPC. The petitioner is a Cargo Executive of the de facto complainant. Various customers allegedly entrust articles to the de facto complainant for being transported to countries abroad. Freight charges are to be paid to the de facto complainant. The petitioner admittedly left the services of the de facto complainant. The present complaint is lodged at that juncture by the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant alleges that from four different clients amounts have been received by the petitioner; but the same have not been remitted to the company. It has not been brought to the accounts of the B.A. No. 517 OF 2008 -: 2 :- company. Those amounts - exceeding Rs.7.5 lakhs in all, have allegedly been misappropriated by the petitioner. A 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. The de facto complainant – the Managing Director of the company, is related to the petitioner. The de facto complainant was heavily dependant on the petitioner for the transaction of business of the company. The petitioner got a better offer for employment and he hence had to put in his papers to leave the company. This act was not relished by the de facto complainant. To create problems for the petitioner and to vex and harass him, a false complaint has been filed with the transparent motive of ensuring that the petitioner is unable to take up such employment. In these circumstances, it is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor was requested to state specifically the nature of the alleged contumacious acts committed by the petitioner. The short statement is that the petitioner has allegedly received amounts from various customers; but he has not brought the same into the accounts. Which is the amount that has been received and not accounted? B.A. No. 517 OF 2008 -: 3 :- Admittedly, the customers have no documents to show that any specific amounts have been entrusted to the petitioner which he has not brought into the account of the company. Some amounts as per the accounts are liable to be paid by such customers to the de facto complainant. They allege that such amounts were paid to the petitioner. This is the only piece of material. I have gone through the statements of such customers. They state categorically that there is no document to evidence such payment given by the petitioner to them. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the manipulations in certain documents have been made. Which is the document manipulated and what is the manipulation? The learned Public Prosecutor submits that when invoices are prepared, the copy given to the company does not represent the copy given to the customer. This is the allegation. But the Case Diary does not show that in respect of any one such specific document, such tampering has been done. At the request of this Court the Case Diary was made available for my perusal. My attention is not drawn on any specific instance of such alleged tampering. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The totality of circumstances in this case do certainly instil me the satisfaction B.A. No. 517 OF 2008 -: 4 :- that this is a fit case where the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. can and ought to be issued in favour of the petitioner. Appropriate conditions can, of course, be imposed to ensure that a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation is conducted. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 13/2/08. He shall be released on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (ii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the learned Magistrate. (iii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 14/2/08 and 15/2/08. During this period the Investigator shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of the investigation. Thereafter the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months. Subsequently, B.A. No. 517 OF 2008 -: 5 :- he shall so make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (iv) 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; (v) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 13/2/08 as directed in clause (i) above, he shall be released on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 13/2/08. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge