IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1410 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.52/08 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- V.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. SUBRAN, VADEPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUZHUPILLY, AYYAMPILLY. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.FAISAL RESPONDENTS: STATE/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BINANIPURAM, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1410 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is an employee of the Alangadu Grama panchayat. He had allegedly received an amount of Rs.6,848/- from one Divya Kumar Jain and had issued a receipt for the said amount to his an agent. Though the copy of the receipt handed over to the party showed that an amount of Rs.6,848/- has been received, the original kept in the office only showed that an amount of Rs.15/- had been received. Only that amount was brought into the accounts of the panchayat. The offence was detected. Action was initiated. Ultimately a complaint was filed before the police. Crime has accordingly been registered on 14.02.08. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. Only an amount of Rs.15/- had been received. The petitioner is not responsible for the alteration of the copy retained by the party. In any view of the matter, the petitioner does not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the available indications clearly show the complicity of the petitioner. In any B.A.No.1410 of 2008 2 view of the matter, the petitioner does not deserve the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I have perused the case diary. Copies of the original receipt as well as the receipt issued to the party are available in the case diary. The case diary statement of the person who allegedly made the payment and obtained the receipt has also been perused by me. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to agree that any circumstances exist in this case which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- B.A.No.1410 of 2008 3