IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 107 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.406/07 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- B.HARIDAS,S/O.BHASI, CHAVINICHIVILAVEEDU,SATHYAM NAGAR, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 406 OF 2007 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 107 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is now arrayed as the 1st accused in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.420 and 468 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. The crux of the allegations is that a number of applicants for loans had submitted applications to the Kerala Transport Development Corporation. There was collusion between such applicants, some of the employees of the Corporation as also the petitioner who, claiming to be a dealer in vehicles, allegedly issued invoices offering to supply vehicles to such loanees. The Corporation allegedly in deviation of the procedure which they were expected to follow, had issued cheques in the name of the petitioner/his establishment. No vehicles were supplied at all; but the amounts were misappropriated. There is an allegation that part of the B.A. No. 107 OF 2008 -: 2 :- amount was retained by the petitioner, part of it was paid to the loanees concerned and part of it was shared with the colluding employees of the Corporation. This, in short, is the allegation. The crime has been registered as early as on 17/8/2007. 2. A perusal of the Case Diary shows that no purposeful investigation has been conducted so far and the investigation has not been done with any thrust on any relevant or specific aspects. 3. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioner now contends that the allegations against the petitioner are totally false. According to him, the boot is on the other leg. The complainant – the Managing Director of the Corporation, is neck deep in trouble. She is alleged to be involved in several improprieties. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Vigilance Department is conducting an enquiry into the activities of the Managing Director of the Corporation. To avoid blame for herself and to deflect the allegations directed against her, she had made a false complaint raising vague and general allegations of cheating, forgery etc., against the loanees and others. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances, prays that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits B.A. No. 107 OF 2008 -: 3 :- that the petitioner is willing to co-operate with the Investigator. But he may be spared of the undeserved trauma of arrest and detention, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have perused the Case Diary. Though dissatisfied about the nature and quality of the investigation that has been conducting so far, one cannot lose sight of the specific allegations against the petitioner. The specific allegation is that he, who is not a dealer, has issued invoices pretending to be a dealer to facilitate siphoning out of the funds of the Corporation. Without and before supplying the vehicles to the loanees, he has obtained cheques in his name which he has used for his personal purpose and also has shared the booty along with the officials of the Corporation. 5. The crux or the gravamen of the allegation is not in any way contra indicated by any materials presently available. Powers under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. are to be invoked sparingly and in exceptional cases in aid of justice. An order of anticipatory bail under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. virtually transforms a non-bailable offence declared by law to be a bailable one. Compelling reasons must be shown to exist to justify resort to the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. B.A. No. 107 OF 2008 -: 4 :- 6. I do not embark on any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that an anxious consideration of all the rival contentions and a perusal of the Case Diary do not in any way instil me the satisfaction that there are any features in this case that would justify or warrant the resort to the powers under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. 7. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks 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. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge