IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7627 of 2008() -------------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.797 OF 2008 OF GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER:ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- MANIKANDAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.P.GOVINDANKUTTY NAIR (LATE) "PANKAJAM" NEAR PERUMTHATTA SHIVA TEMPLE, GURUVAYOOR. BY MR.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV.MR.MANU TOM CHERUVALLY, MR.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI. RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 7627 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 409 of IPC. According to prosecution, a complaint was given by the Administrator, Guruvayoor Devaswom alleging that petitioner while working as U.D.Clerk in the Devaswom Board, cheques were issued by the Deputy Administrator to several contractors. When those cheques were presented by the petitioner in the Andhara Bank wherein petitioner's wife was working and those were found to be manipulated and amounts were obtained by petitioner and thereby he committed the various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was only one of the U.D. Clerks working in the Devaswom at the time of commission of alleged offence. Petitioner has not committed any offence. The contractors have not come forward by making any complaint, it is submitted. In the above circumstances, petitioner's involvement cannot be confirmed, in [B.A.No.7627/08] 2 the absence of complaint from the contractors. Therefore, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the crime is registered as early as on 1.12.2008 and petitioner could not be arrested and questioned so far. As per the allegations made in the first information statement, the offence is very serious and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner's presence will be required for the purpose of interrogation and investigation. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public prosecutor. The allegations made against petitioner in this case are serious in nature and petitioner's interrogation will be required for ascertaining the facts which are within his exclusive knowledge. In the peculiar nature of the offence committed, his interrogation will be required to find out in what manner the offence was committed. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. No special circumstance is pointed out to invoke the provision under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police [B.A.No.7627/08] 3 is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.