IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3703 of 2009 CRIME NO.V.C.5/2009 OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, ERNAKULAM. CMP.317/2009 of ENQUIRY COMMR.& SPL.JUDGE,THRISSUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- S.MADHUSOODHANAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN, THEVARMADATHIL HOUSE, AVOLY KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, (ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR, KALLOORKAD). BY ADV. SRIK.C.SURESH SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3703 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th July, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime V.C.5 of 2009 of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is as follows: The daughter of the de facto complainant informed the police that her neighbour had attempted to outrage her modesty. The petitioner, who was the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Kalloorkad Police Station, recorded the First Information Statement of the de facto complainant in that case and received a sum of Rs.200/- as bribe. The further allegation is that the petitioner demanded a further sum of Rs.1,500/- for the further investigation of the case. The de facto complainant in the present case (who is the father of the lady who gave the First Information Statement in the other case) stated that he is a coolie and that he was unable to pay the amount. The petitioner then reduced the amount from Rs.1,500/- to B.A. NO. 3703 OF 2009 :: 2 :: Rs.500/-. The de facto complainant informed the Vigilance Police and the petitioner was trapped, after he received the amount of Rs.500/-. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 29.6.2009 and he is in judicial custody. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is not complete and that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would affect the proper investigation of the case. 6. The petitioner was the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police of Kalloorkad Police Station. The de facto complainant is a coolie. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood of the witnesses being influenced or intimidated, which would certainly affect the proper investigation of the case. I do not think that it is proper to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/