IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8762 of 2011 CRIME NO.978 OF 2011 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION. PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.2: -------------------- S.V.ASHOK KUMAR, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, AGED 53, THIRAMATH PUTHEN VEED, MUNDANKAV, CHENGANOOR. BY ADV. SRI.ANILKUMAR.K.N.PILLAI RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANOOR POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO.8762 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of November, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.978 of 2011 of Chengannur Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 408, 477A and 381 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: The defacto complainant is the proprietor of a financial concern and accused Nos.1 and 2 were the employees there. It is alleged that between the period from March 2011 to September 2011, the accused persons falsified the accounts and misappropriated a sum of `26 lakhs from the financial concern. 4. The petitioner filed B.A.No.8074 of 2011 praying for BAIL APPL. NO. 8762 OF 2011 :: 2 :: anticipatory bail, which was disposed of as per the order dated 11.10.2011, which reads as follows: “The petitioner apprehends arrest in a crime registered at Chengannur Police Station alleging commission of non-bailable offences by the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends that Arun Thomas had filed a petition before the police. 2. The learned State Prosecutor submitted that no crime is registered against the petitioner and that the police have no intention to arrest the petitioner as of now. The submission made by the learned State Prosecutor is recorded. This Bail Application is closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again as and when occasion arises. It is submitted by the learned State Prosecutor that if any crime is registered on the basis of a petition filed by Arun Thomas, within a period of three months, notice will be issued to the petitioner under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. The Bail Application is disposed of as above. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the Sub Inspector of Police, Chengannur.” 5. The case of the petitioner is that on 19.10.2011, the BAIL APPL. NO. 8762 OF 2011 :: 3 :: petitioner was summoned to the police station and he was made to sit in the police station for about eight hours. He also stated that another notice was issued to him by the police directing him to appear on 20.10.2011. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after the disposal of B.A.No.8074 of 2011, notice dated 18.10.2011 was issued to the petitioner to appear before the police on 20.10.2011. But the petitioner did not turn up. 7. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature. The allegation is that the accused misappropriated `26 lakhs while they were working in the financial concern of the defacto complainant by falsifying the accounts and documents. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/