IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7386 of 2008(A) ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.1309/ 2008 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ------------------ 1. C.P.SHOBANA, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.CHATHAKUTTY, CHIRAKKA PARAMBIL HOUSE, THALAKKAD AMSOM, THEVALAPPURAM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 2. VELAYUDHAN @ MANI, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, MOOCHIKKOOTTA PARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.IRUMBILIYAM, IRUMBILIYAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN RESPONDENT : ----------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------- B.A. No.7386 OF 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 465, 468, 409, 420 read with 34 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, first petitioner was working in a financial institution and she, in furtherance of common intention with her husband, misappropriated the funds of the institution and thereby caused loss to the institution and also cheated the defacto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The money dealings are done by the Manager of the institution and first petitioner has no role in the same. She is only an employee in the institution and she is not quite educated. The petitioner's husband has nothing to do with the institution, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the compliant as a whole contains vague allegations of B.A.No.7386 of 2008 2 misappropriation etc. But there is an allegation regarding Rs.3Lakhs being advanced to one Anwar by first petitioner without the permission of the institution and in respect of the same, first accused has given a latter to the Company admitting it. Second petitioner has nothing to do with the Company, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made against first petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to her. But, as far as second accused is concerned, there are no sufficient materials in the case diary and therefore, he can be granted anticipatory bail. But, first petitioner is at liberty to raise all contentions before the trial court, if any bail application is filed under Section 437 Cr.P.C. and it shall be disposed of on merit considering all the contentions raised by her, in accordance with law. It is made clear that the considerations for an anticipatory bail application and an application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are different. In the result, the following order is passed. 1. The prayer for anticipatory bail by first B.A.No.7386 of 2008 3 accused is rejected. She shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned or the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation without any delay. 2. Second accused shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions : i) He shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. ii) He shall not commit any offence while on bail. The petition is partly allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac