IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7198 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.3173/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.292/08 OF WALAYAR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ ACCUSED --------------------------------------- T.GIRISH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.THANGAVELU, KULATHINGAL HOUSE,KANNAMEDU, KOZHINJAMPARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WALAYAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7198 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd December, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner is an Upper Division Clerk, working in the Grama Panchayat, who received Rs.47,010/- towards half yearly professional tax for the year 2008-09 from Government employees. The amount was not remitted in the Treasury. The omission was detected at the audit held on 26.9.2008. Petitioner misappropriated the amount and committed offence under Sections 406 and 409 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was only a mere omission on the part of petitioner in remitting the amount at the appropriate time and no criminal intention can be attached to him and hence, no offence is committed. It is also pointed out that petitioner deposited the amount with penal interest immediately after detecting that the amount was not remitted. Therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a clear case of misappropriation, which was BA.7198/08 2 detected in auditing and petitioner was forced to deposit the amount, as per a direction given by the Deputy Director. The mere fact that petitioner deposited the amount, will not wash away the offence, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, I find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Crime was registered as early as on 1.10.2008 and petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation. Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned or the police without any delay. It is needless to say that consideration for granting bail and anticipatory bail are different. It is made clear that dismissal of an anticipatory bail application may not by itself be a ground to reject application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. With this direction and observations, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.