IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4969 of 2009() -------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1017/2007 OF MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION. ....................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- V.SURESH BABU, S/O.THAMI, VALIYATHRA HOUSE, KODOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT/STATE: ----------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 4969 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of September, 2009 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.1017/2007 of Malappuram Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defacto complainant is the Project Officer of the District Khadi and Village Industries Office, Malappuram. The following facts are revealed from the petition filed by the defacto complainant. A loan was sanctioned to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 6,45,300/- for setting up a washing soap unit under the C B C Scheme. The loan amount was credited in the S.B. Account of the petitioner in State Bank of Travancore, Malappuram. Specific instructions were issued by the office of the defacto complainant that the instalments of the loan payable at different intervals should be released only on production of the withdrawal slips/ cheques duly counter signed by the Project Officer of the District B.A. No. 4969 of 2009 2 Khadi and Village Industrues Office. Originally the petitioner was permitted to receive only Rs. 65,000/- as the first instalment. It would appear that the sureties raised objection against the disbursement of the further instalments of loan to the petitioner on various grounds. Instructions were issued by the Board to the bank to close the account and to refund the balance amount. The bank authorities informed that the petitioner had already withdrawn an amount of Rs. 5,80,300/- by producing seven withdrawal slips. The allegation is that the seal and signature of the Project Officer in the withdrawal slips are fake. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amounts were withdrawn during the period from December 2000 to January 2003 and the petition filed by the defacto complainant is dated 30.11.2007. There is inordinate delay in filing the petition. It is submitted that there is no bonafides on the part of the defacto complainant. It is pointed out that the petitioner could not run the business and his immovable properties are being proceeded with under the Revenue Recovery Proceedings for realisation of the amounts due to the Board. 5. I have gone through the Case Diary. It is seen that the B.A. No. 4969 of 2009 3 sureties informed the Board that they were not willing to stand as sureties. That letter was received by the Board in the year 2000. The withdrawal of the various amounts was from December 2000 to January, 2003. There was delay on the part of the Board in taking appropriate steps. This is a relevant factor in considering whether the petitioner should be granted Anticipatory Bail at this point of time. The question is whether it is necessary to detain the petitioner in judicial custody in order to get the necessary details for investigation or otherwise to secure a proper and effective investigation of the case. I am of the view that at this point of time in order to have a proper investigation, it is not at all necessary to detain the petitioner in judicial custody. Anticipatory Bail can be granted in favour of the petitioner on stringent conditions. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the B.A. No. 4969 of 2009 4 officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; B) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. E) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln