IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2895 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.850/2008 OF SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER : 1ST ACCUSED ---------------------------- THOUFEEK RIZWAN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.AJEEM NISHTAR, RESIDING AT JAYA BHAVAN, KURUP, VADAKKEVILA P.O., VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.2895 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The petitioner is first accused in the crime. The alleged offences are under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. 3. According to the prosecution, petitioner is in-charge of granting loan on behalf of the financing company. The petitioner allegedly used to verify the loan applications and the details of the documents and on his recommendation, the documents are genuine, loan up to Rs.25,000/- used to be granted. Loans were issued to various persons on the recommendation of the petitioner but, they defaulted payment. It is also found later that the documents are not genuine, contrary to what petitioner reported. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is only a Field Assistant who was appointed for a meagre monthly salary of Rs.1,900/-. He is lower in rank than even a peon. He was never in charge of granting loans as alleged BA 2895/08 2 by the prosecution. He is not trained to scrutinise any document or certify the genuineness. He has not been distributing any loan amount. There are competent persons working in the institution who are more responsible than the petitioner. The petitioner has been falsely implicated only because that the petitioner insisted to return Rs.50,000/- which he deposited as security amount when he was appointed. He had resigned from the job. It is only to delay payment of Rs.50,000/-, false allegations are made against the petitioner. 5. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not been given any high responsibilities. Had it been done, there must be some documents to establish the same. As a Field Assistant, his only job was to collect amounts from various parties and pay to the institution. He has never misappropriated any money which was paid to him by the parties and there was no such allegations against him so far. In spite of the fact that he was having access to money as a collecting agent, he has not misappropriated any amount during the discharge of his duties and there were no such complaints also. But, the present allegation is raised only in the circumstances stated above, it is submitted. BA 2895/08 3 6. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor conceded that no documents are available to show that the petitioner was given the duty to verify the documents and certify them to be genuine. There are also no documents to establish that the petitioner was entrusted with the duty of recommending loan up to Rs.25,000/-. Though there was a specific direction by this court on 10.6.2008 to the prosecution to verify whether there are records to support the allegation that the petitioner was entrusted with power to grant loan to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, no such documents could be pointed out. Learned public prosecutor, however, submitted that as per the case diary statement, the Divisional officer and all the witnesses would say that the petitioner was in charge of sanctioning the loan up to Rs.25,000/-. 7. On hearing both sides, I find that a conditional order has to be passed and the following order is passed: (I) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating officer within one week from the date of this order and make himself available for investigation. BA 2895/08 4 (II) Therefore, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, if any, the petitioner shall be produced before the Magistrate court in accordance with law. (III) On production of the accused before the learned Magistrate, if any bail application is filed, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate Court concerned on the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. until further orders. (ii) Petitioner shall not leave the limits of the police station within which the crime is registered except with the prior permission of the learned Magistrate. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl