IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2033 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.66/2010 OF POTHANKODE POLICE STATION, THRUVANANTHAPURAM) : PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- VIJAYAMOHAN NAIR,S/O.R.K.BHAVAN, KOONTHALLOOR,CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,POTHANKODE POLICE STATION, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ------------------------ B.A. No. 2033 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No. 66/2010 of Pothankode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: The petitioner was working as Manager of Muthoot Mercantile Limited at Pothankode Branch. The other accused persons are the employees in the Bank. The allegation is that the accused persons made the records and accounts in such a way that huge quantity of gold worth Rs, 36,23,500/- was pledged in Muthoot Mercantile Limited and thereupon they withdrew the cash from the concern. The offence was detected when an enquiry was conducted into the affairs of the concern. The matter was reported to the police and accordingly the crime was registered. The investigation reveals that the accused persons had made B.A. No. 2033/2010 2 records to show that some persons had pledged gold ornaments while really they were all fictitious persons. 4. The investigation of the case is not over. The petitioner surrendered before the Court on 24.03.2010 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that it is proper to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln