IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7686 of 2009() ----------------------------- CMP.10259/2009 of J.M.F.C., CHENGANNUR CRIME NO.550 OF 2009 OF MANNAR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------------ R.SATHISH VARMA, PAPPINY PALACE, CHENNITHAL.P.O, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNAR, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7686 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.550 of 2009 of Mannar Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 381, 403, 405, 408, 409, 410, 415, 418, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 470, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The wife of the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager (Accounts) in the State Bank of Travancore, Chennithala Branch. She committed suicide on 3.10.2009. The State Bank of Travancore filed a complaint before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chengannur on 16th December, 2009 showing the petitioner as the accused and alleging commission of the offence as aforesaid. The allegation against the petitioner is that he instigated his wife, who was working as the Assistant Manager (Accounts) to misappropriate amounts from the Bank by creating fake accounts in the names of customers by forging their signature and siphoning funds to BA No.7686/2009 2 the accounts of the petitioner, his wife and their children and other fictitious names. It is alleged that a sum of Rs.1,62,83,426/- was thus misappropriated from the State Bank of Travancore. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner is involved in the offence. Even going by the complaint, the amount deposited in the account of the petitioner is Rs.10,69,364/-. It is submitted that this account was created without the knowledge of the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is a beneficiary. The petitioner was totally unaware of the misappropriation and siphoning of the amounts and putting the same in various accounts. If the petitioner is arrested and detained, there would be nobody to look after his children who are studying in colleges. 5. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are very grave in nature. In an application for anticipatory bail, it cannot be decided whether the petitioner has committed the offence. The contention that the amount found in the account of the petitioner was only less than Rs.11 lakhs and therefore, the BA No.7686/2009 3 offence against him is not a very serious offence, in my view, cannot be appreciated. The quantum of the amount is not the relevant criterion. The relevant aspect is whether there is prima facie evidence to show that the offence alleged was committed by the petitioner. Investigation is at the initial stage. It cannot be concluded that the petitioner is not guilty at this juncture. Prima facie, I am of the view that there are materials to connect the petitioner with the offence. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceedings are pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as initiated by the Bank. It is submitted that the Bank had filed an application for attachment before judgment and in the affidavit accompanying the application, even according to the Bank, the petitioner owns properties worth more than Rs.1 crore. It is submitted that the properties belonging to the petitioner are under attachment and therefore, there is no justification for arresting and detaining the petitioner. 7. The fact that a civil case or a proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is pending is not relevant while considering the question whether the petitioner is entitled to BA No.7686/2009 4 anticipatory bail. In a misappropriation case, even if a suit is pending for realisation of the amount misappropriated, there is no bar for initiating or continuing criminal proceedings, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the pendency of the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is irrelevant for the purpose of disposal of this application for anticipatory bail. 8. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl